Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

walker90234 wrote:@ Melissa: If you view this thread as pointless, why bother posting in it?

I never said this thread was pointless. It, after all, exists for my amusement

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.

I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.

All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.

Melissia wrote:

walker90234 wrote:@ Melissa: If you view this thread as pointless, why bother posting in it?

I never said this thread was pointless. It, after all, exists for my amusement

Not purely for your amusement. This is a community, and the OP has created the thread for a purpose. To disregard that purpose and dismiss or derail the thread because you consider the discussion pointless is rude. It's like when people troll a memorial thread to say they don't give a crap that the person died. Don't do it. If you find the thread amusing but pointless, you can enjoy it by reading it, rather than posting just to annoy people.

Bah, it was meant as a joke...

Joey wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.

I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.

All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.

Then you must believe in solipsism and metaphysical nihilism?

Joey wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.

I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.

All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.

You assumed that logic is subjective (I see no proof for it in your original argument: you simply said 'logic is subjective' with no proof.) Kovnik has shown that it is NOT objective. However you have dismissed this arguments simply because you ASSUME that logic is subjective. You are not debating, you are simply making unsupported statements. THAT ISN'T A DEBATE! Support your arguments or they are invalid.
Furthermore, he hasn't even used logic to prove logic. Logic itself is defined as use of tautological statements. A priori knowledge. A logical statement is by its very definition objective. Examples are 1+1=2. You're not seriously going to tell me that the logic I use to define 1+1 as 2 is subjective are you?
If I say:
"a=k
j=k
therefore a=j"
that I am using subjective reasoning? Its simple fact derived from objective logic.
I will ask you to provide on instance of logic being subjective. Do so and I may agree (but you won't).
I'm sorry mate, but I'm not the dim one. I'm making developed deductive arguments. You're just saying random crap. Plus don't insult me, you're being ad hominem, and achieving nothing by it other than showing yourself to be petty and unable to support your own arguments without resorting to insults.
Furthermore, you say that logic is used to process a posteriori facts. this is simply not true, logic is able to do so much more.
1+1=2 is a logically accepted statement. We logically (via a priori learning) know that 1+1=2, as you cannot prove that 1+1=2 via empirical observation. You can use logic to analyse anything that fits a logical pattern, it doesn't matter if it relates to the world or not.
Furthermore, even if you're correct in saying such a thing, my observations concerning determinism are entirely empirical, so that argument in no way applies.

Come on man, actually debate, don't just spew out nonsense. Its no fun that way, I actually want an intelligent discussion. Make your posts more than 3 lines long, as me and my friend Kovnik have been doing. Support your claims.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Joey wrote:

Kovnik Obama wrote:

Joey wrote:1)Almost as if...logic...is...subjective. if only I'd thought of trying to convey that subtly.
2)No because you can't see light, it's invisable.
3)I will lay it out for you since you seem a bit dim:
Logic is a result of homo sapien's need to survive in certain conditions in Africa. It is a way of processing the world around us.
So trying to use it to analyse things above or beyond that range is meaningless.

I guess I have already said this in the 'mathematic' thread, but to say that logic is subjective is to say that logic isn't logic. The subjective development of the logician is interesting when looking at the limits of his/her logical system, but thinking that the logical truth of his propositions itself is relative to his subjectivity, that's not taking in account the fact that logic is driven by one mechanism : tautological symbolism. Logic allows us to symbolize relations of truth, what's subjective is the person's recognition of the empirical relations he will translate in his symbolism.

All of which is the outcome of your own logic. You have subjectively decided that it is objective.

Then you must believe in solipsism and metaphysical nihilism?

You mean, even though I disagree with the premise of your logic, I still fit into your catagories? Not really.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

walker90234 wrote:
You assumed that logic is subjective (I see no proof for it in your original argument: you simply said 'logic is subjective' with no proof.) Kovnik has shown that it is NOT objective. However you have dismissed this arguments simply because you ASSUME that logic is subjective. You are not debating, you are simply making unsupported statements. THAT ISN'T A DEBATE! Support your arguments or they are invalid.

So I should use your own version of logic, in order to prove that your logic is worthless?

However you haven't supported your arguments, as I have already shown, whereas Kovnik has, therefore your arguments are void one liners, that don't conclude anything. Sorry, you need to address what I have said, otherwise your entire argument is void.

its not MY version of logic. It is THE version of logic.
It is objective not subjective.
You have failed to show in any way that it is subjective. What you seem to be saying is that "i say its subjective and so it is". If that, by your standards, is logic then I don't even know why you are in this topic. If logic is simply saying "I say so, so its true" then yes, it is subjective. But thats not what logic is. Logic, by definition, is using tautological statements. What you are using, although you label it logic, ISNT logic! Stop pretending it is. if you can SHOW it is, I will agree, but if you can't, and logic is simply assumption, I can say "i win this thread" and i auto magically do. Thats not logic, sorry.

Furthermore, you have ignored half of my post. It overturns your arguments. Address it or retire, those are your options.

If you're going to have an intelligent discussion, back up your points.
Show me an instance of subjective logic, otherwise your points are void.

Anyway, I'm going to now take the advice of Scrabb, since as you are adding nothing to the debate, you are no longer relevant.

Unless joey can provide something meaningful, I suggest we all stop pandering to his whims.

Mr Walker90234, I believe you will get more out of this thread by responding to dæl than by making Joey look sympathetic.

You have a fair point, since Joey is basically adding nothing to the thread, and cannot seem to wrap his brain around logic in any way, I shall address Dael and a number of others.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?
Just asking. I admit I do not understand the concept all too well.

Yeah, I had this problem too, but I will do my best to explain it to you.
I assume by random chance you mean events such as rolling dice? If you roll a dice, it seems as if the number chosen is completely random. However this is not actually the case, as you will readily admit that the number which comes up is a direct result of such variables as the dices velocity across the table, the texture of the table, the weight of the dice, ect.
Since I'm on Dakka, I can illustrate this quite well: we've all heard of practiced rolling. If I hold a dice in my hand with a 6 facing up, and roll it in a particular back hand flick (I can actually do this 50% of the time btw, though I choose not to) it will come up with a 6. The number that has come up has been determined by a number of variables, which I have determined consciously.
Now, when we roll a dice normally, these variable still exist (although my rolling motion and the way the dice faces has been selected subconsciously, just on whim (the dice is lying with the 6 facing up, I pick it up so that the 6 is facing down just by the fact that it was facing up and my thoughts at the time ect.) and my motions are unintended, and just occur by unknown causes) and as such, the way the dice rolls is determined by its surroundings, all of which themselves have causes.
Random number algorithms also have causes behind them, although we can't see it. So does the choice of number in the human brain ect. ect.

@Dael: I really don't have much knowledge on quantum theory, or whether it has been proven, or just seems to be that way. Furthermore, I have also heard that such events do have causes, but they are simply unknown as of yet, though I don't know whether that is actually true. Please enlighten me?

walker90234 wrote:However you haven't supported your arguments, as I have already shown, whereas Kovnik has, therefore your arguments are void one liners, that don't conclude anything. Sorry, you need to address what I have said, otherwise your entire argument is void.

Yes, you're asking me to use YOUR logic, to explain why I think YOUR logic doesn't work.
Clearly you don't understand what I'm trying to say.
This is the great rift valley:

Within which, logic works.

Take it outside of that, into the very large or the very small, and it breaks. We've known this for a while.
Problem is people use that to justify the existence of a god (which is bs).
What you call "logic" is the plaything of bourgeois layabouts, it has no practical or technical use whatsoever, and is bunk.
But you use your own logic to justify its validity, so it doesn't bother you. If you can't see that paradox, I pity you.

walker90234 wrote:You have a fair point, since Joey is basically adding nothing to the thread, and cannot seem to wrap his brain around logic in any way, I shall address Dael and a number of others.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:If the universe is deterministic, and there is only one set path, then why does random chance exist?
Just asking. I admit I do not understand the concept all too well.

Yeah, I had this problem too, but I will do my best to explain it to you.
I assume by random chance you mean events such as rolling dice? If you roll a dice, it seems as if the number chosen is completely random. However this is not actually the case, as you will readily admit that the number which comes up is a direct result of such variables as the dices velocity across the table, the texture of the table, the weight of the dice, ect.
Since I'm on Dakka, I can illustrate this quite well: we've all heard of practiced rolling. If I hold a dice in my hand with a 6 facing up, and roll it in a particular back hand flick (I can actually do this 50% of the time btw, though I choose not to) it will come up with a 6. The number that has come up has been determined by a number of variables, which I have determined consciously.
Now, when we roll a dice normally, these variable still exist (although my rolling motion and the way the dice faces has been selected subconsciously, just on whim (the dice is lying with the 6 facing up, I pick it up so that the 6 is facing down just by the fact that it was facing up and my thoughts at the time ect.) and my motions are unintended, and just occur by unknown causes) and as such, the way the dice rolls is determined by its surroundings, all of which themselves have causes.
Random number algorithms also have causes behind them, although we can't see it. So does the choice of number in the human brain ect. ect.

@Dael: I really don't have much knowledge on quantum theory, or whether it has been proven, or just seems to be that way. Furthermore, I have also heard that such events do have causes, but they are simply unknown as of yet, though I don't know whether that is actually true. Please enlighten me?

Oh, so you mean determinism as a product of a series of underlying factors and causes?
Oh yeah, that totally makes sense, cause and effect and all that jazz.
I think chaos theory (or was it the butterfly effect?) said something similar.

"Take it outside of that, into the very large or the very small, and it breaks. We've known this for a while. "

explain?

"Problem is people use that to justify the existence of a god (which is bs)."

Not really a problem. People TRY to justify the existence of god. whether their particular attempt at logic fails or not doesn't debunk the whole theory of logic.
An example: Anslem tried to use logic to prove God existed by definition. He failed. Does this mean logic is wrong because it seemed to make sense in his argument? No, it just means he used his logic wrong.

"What you call "logic" is the plaything of bourgeois layabouts, it has no practical or technical use whatsoever, and is bunk. "

I am not even arguing the importance of logic in this thread, I'm not saying it has a practical or technical use. I'm simply having fun, if you have eve heard of such a thing. You should try it some time, its very appealing. Furthermore, just because you can't use it to say, build a car, doesn't make the use we put it to any the less valid. Just because you see logic as having no use, does make it "subjective".

"But you use your own logic to justify its validity, so it doesn't bother you. If you can't see that paradox, I pity you."

I'M NOT USING MY OWN LOGIC TO JUSTIFY THE MEANING OF LOGIC. I'M SIMPLY SAYING, THE DEFINITION OF LOGIC IS THAT USED BY PHILOSOPHY. furthermore, we don't need to justify logic, it just works. Logical statements are those which follow a deductive pattern (this is the philosophical definition of logic, if you want to use a different definition, that definition has no application to this thread, as this thread relies on such deductive logic, not your pseudo-logic) and arguments which follow a deductive pattern are mathematical in their structure: they follow the same patterns as found in pure mathematics (algebra ect) in the fact that the premises lead intuitively to one another.
Take this deductive example:
1) John is a man
2) men are bad at driving
conclusion: john is bad at driving
That is a logical argument. The premises, if they are true, lead to the conclusion. Explain in any what, whatsoever, how the layout of that argument is, as you say, subjective? yes, the premises may not be true, but the logical layout IS.

now the kicker:
"Yes, you're asking me to use YOUR logic, to explain why I think YOUR logic doesn't work. "

I'm asking you to use ANYTHING to justify why my logic doesn't work. You're really not phrasing yourself well. Show me, in any way, why logic is "subjective". You have failed to do so, so far, other than to say "logic is subjective". You haven't defined logic in any meaningful way. In you opinion, what is logic? Why do you think it is subjective? Use anything to do this. SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. and unsupported argument is not an arguments. Support it in any way at all, even if that doesn't follow 'my logic'

So I'm simply going to ask you nicely, one last time, before I finally dismiss you as a complete idiot, to make a meaningful contribution. In ANY way. define why logic is subjective. make an argument, in ANY way.
All you have said is "Logic is subjective"
I can't reply to that, as you say your logic proves that, but you haven't defined your logic. Define your logic. otherwise all you are saying is "its right because I say so"

Final note:This is a philosophical debate. In a philosophical debate, whatever your views on this pseudo logic of yours, the laws of philosophical logic apply. As such, your arguments really have no place here. Prove IN ANY WAY that our logic is subjective, or get out.

EDIT: @cuthulluspy: Yeah, thats exactly what I'm saying, its really just based on chaos theory!

EDIT: We have a little misunderstanding on page one: when I said care to expand on that, i was referring to the post above your,a s you hadn't posted yet. I hadn't noticed your analogy.
I shall attempt to address it:
you us an analogy to try take down my claim (an analogy is a logical tool btw). The thing is, the human mind and a ruler are incredibly different things, and as such comparing them is absurd. Its like saying, if I try to have sex with a cow, its internal pressure will rip my organs out. Therefore, since a human is an animal, if i try to do the same thing with one of those, I will have my organs ripped out.

See how that argument fails? In order for analogies to work, the things being compared need to be similar, whereas anatomically, humans and cows are very different, therefore the analogy doesn't work.
Now, the human mind is very different to a ruler, and as such works to an even lesser extent than the cow-human one.
Analogies work by saying "these things are similar in way A therefore must be similar in way B"
this works with very similar things:
If I see you, a human (i assume), hit yourself in the thumb with a hammer, and you cry out, I can assume that since you are human and cry out when you hit yourself with a hammer, just like me (we are the same in way A) that you must have a similar nervous similar to me (we are similar in way B) the analogy is fairly simple and the two are so similar so it works. Your analogy however is too different to actually work.
This is also the reason why the teleological argument for the existence of God fails, fyi. research David Hume if you want more info on it.

walker90234 wrote:"Take it outside of that, into the very large or the very small, and it breaks. We've known this for a while. "

explain?

Quantum physics is pretty fething illogical, as is gravity on a large scale.

walker90234 wrote:
I'M NOT USING MY OWN LOGIC TO JUSTIFY THE MEANING OF LOGIC. I'M SIMPLY SAYING, THE DEFINITION OF LOGIC IS THAT USED BY PHILOSOPHY. furthermore, we don't need to justify logic, it just works. Logical statements are those which follow a deductive pattern (this is the philosophical definition of logic, if you want to use a different definition, that definition has no application to this thread, as this thread relies on such deductive logic, not your pseudo-logic) and arguments which follow a deductive pattern are mathematical in their structure: they follow the same patterns as found in pure mathematics (algebra ect) in the fact that the premises lead intuitively to one another.
Take this deductive example:
1) John is a man
2) men are bad at driving
conclusion: john is bad at driving
That is a logical argument. The premises, if they are true, lead to the conclusion. Explain in any what, whatsoever, how the layout of that argument is, as you say, subjective? yes, the premises may not be true, but the logical layout IS.

Here's my logical example:
1)I can prove that something is true once
2)It must now always be true

You really need to question your own methods more.

walker90234 wrote:
now the kicker:
"Yes, you're asking me to use YOUR logic, to explain why I think YOUR logic doesn't work. "

I'm asking you to use ANYTHING to justify why my logic doesn't work. You're really not phrasing yourself well. Show me, in any way, why logic is "subjective". You have failed to do so, so far, other than to say "logic is subjective". You haven't defined logic in any meaningful way. In you opinion, what is logic? Why do you think it is subjective? Use anything to do this. SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. and unsupported argument is not an arguments. Support it in any way at all, even if that doesn't follow 'my logic'

All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything.

walker90234 wrote:
So I'm simply going to ask you nicely, one last time, before I finally dismiss you as a complete idiot, to make a meaningful contribution. In ANY way. define why logic is subjective. make an argument, in ANY way.
All you have said is "Logic is subjective"
I can't reply to that, as you say your logic proves that, but you haven't defined your logic. Define your logic. otherwise all you are saying is "its right because I say so"[/b]

Final note:This is a philosophical debate. In a philosophical debate, whatever your views on this pseudo logic of yours, the laws of philosophical logic apply. As such, your arguments really have no place here. Prove IN ANY WAY that our logic is subjective, or get out.

Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view.
I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose.

Mannahnin wrote: rather than posting just to annoy people.[/color]

That never happens here...

Firstly, read the end of my last post after i edited, just so I don't have to repost.

"Here's my logical example:
1)I can prove that something is true once
2)It must now always be true "
I don't really get what you're trying to say here? that this shows logic is subjective? All it shows is that inductive reasoning doesn't always work. I completely agree with that!
But you use inductive reassigning throughout your life: you assume because you press down on the keyboard keys, it will type, because it has done so in the past.

Yes, inductive reasoning may have its flaws, but that doesn't make all logic subjective, it simply means some logic doesn't lead to a certainty.


"All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything."
yes, I do philosophy A-level, and maths, I know what axioms are, I know that not everything is proven.
Are you claiming that your argument that logic is subjective is an axiom? Is that what your trying to say? your really not making yourself clear.

"Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view. "
I'm asking you to tell me what YOUR world view is, rather than simply saying mine is wrong, So far you haven't.

"I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose."
I'd rather someone verbose who actually says things, than someone who fails to explain what they are saying?

The concept of power makes free will irrelevant.

Bleak. Bleak, but true nonetheless.

walker90234 wrote:Firstly, read the end of my last post after i edited, just so I don't have to repost.

"Here's my logical example:
1)I can prove that something is true once
2)It must now always be true "
I don't really get what you're trying to say here? that this shows logic is subjective? All it shows is that inductive reasoning doesn't always work. I completely agree with that!
But you use inductive reassigning throughout your life: you assume because you press down on the keyboard keys, it will type, because it has done so in the past.

Yes, inductive reasoning may have its flaws, but that doesn't make all logic subjective, it simply means some logic doesn't lead to a certainty.

Right, so you're still using other criteria to establish truth. I may as well say "people with blue eyes are more intelligent", simply because most intelligent people I know have blue eyes. It would be right, most of the time. But the method is flawed.

walker90234 wrote:
"All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything."
yes, I do philosophy A-level, and maths, I know what axioms are, I know that not everything is proven.
Are you claiming that your argument that logic is subjective is an axiom? Is that what your trying to say? your really not making yourself clear.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you do A-level philosophy.
I am making myself clear - you can only justify the validity of logic, using logic itself. Since logic is a tool that our ancestors evolved to survive in the wild, you can't extrapolate it to anything beyond what could be considered "the human realm". Quantum physics is a brilliant example of this.

walker90234 wrote:
"Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view. "
I'm asking you to tell me what YOUR world view is, rather than simply saying mine is wrong, So far you haven't.

I don't have a world view. The world is a random, chaotic and uncaring entropic mess. Or it may not be. I don't really care either way.

walker90234 wrote:
"I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose."
I'd rather someone verbose who actually says things, than someone who fails to explain what they are saying?

No, but it's very easy to disguise bs around a veil of long, technical sounding words.
See George Orwell's essay:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

Oh, orwellss fantastc, iveread that for my personal statement (doing English). And ur being a bit if a hypocrite their with all your pontificates and verboses

Joey wrote:

walker90234 wrote:Firstly, read the end of my last post after i edited, just so I don't have to repost.

"Here's my logical example:
1)I can prove that something is true once
2)It must now always be true "
I don't really get what you're trying to say here? that this shows logic is subjective? All it shows is that inductive reasoning doesn't always work. I completely agree with that!
But you use inductive reassigning throughout your life: you assume because you press down on the keyboard keys, it will type, because it has done so in the past.

Yes, inductive reasoning may have its flaws, but that doesn't make all logic subjective, it simply means some logic doesn't lead to a certainty.

Right, so you're still using other criteria to establish truth. I may as well say "people with blue eyes are more intelligent", simply because most intelligent people I know have blue eyes. It would be right, most of the time. But the method is flawed.

walker90234 wrote:
"All proof is based upon assumptions or "axioms". It's impossible to prove anything."
yes, I do philosophy A-level, and maths, I know what axioms are, I know that not everything is proven.
Are you claiming that your argument that logic is subjective is an axiom? Is that what your trying to say? your really not making yourself clear.

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you do A-level philosophy.
I am making myself clear - you can only justify the validity of logic, using logic itself. Since logic is a tool that our ancestors evolved to survive in the wild, you can't extrapolate it to anything beyond what could be considered "the human realm". Quantum physics is a brilliant example of this.

walker90234 wrote:
"Again, you're asking me to use your world view, to explain why I don't believe in your world view. "
I'm asking you to tell me what YOUR world view is, rather than simply saying mine is wrong, So far you haven't.

I don't have a world view. The world is a random, chaotic and uncaring entropic mess. Or it may not be. I don't really care either way.

walker90234 wrote:
"I think you need to question more, and pontificate less. People with useful things to say are rarely verbose."
I'd rather someone verbose who actually says things, than someone who fails to explain what they are saying?

No, but it's very easy to disguise bs around a veil of long, technical sounding words.
See George Orwell's essay:
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

Sorry, mate, but I must at least here say that most of what you say on quantum physics is still considered undetermined by most experts. Quantum logic is all but illogical, if what' I've understood about it isn't completely false, it's simply very complicated adiabatic logic. Here's a crash course : http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dev-tutorial-intro.html. No one knows right now exactly what is the incoherent state that is the hallmark of quantum effects, but one thing that is pretty much sure, it's that it's not a default state, it can only remain 'undetermined' for so long (and 'so long' is very short), before the state become coherent once more. That's why it's not necessarily correct to say that it 'breaks' classical logic.

Your take on logic doesn't take in account the common development of logical modules in children of the same age in different countries and societies. Children around the world at 5-6 will learn 'quantitative conservation', by which a group, when split up, retains the same number across the two new groups. Around 10-12, the child will then learn about the proper structure of causality, which is to say that the first event caused the result. and not the result causing the event, like it is often believed in finalist explanations. If all human cognitive systems balance themselves around the same perceptions, I don't see what makes them entirely subjective (as in relative to the subject).

Now they aren't true, as in they don't describe accurately a fact, (logic doesn't say anything about facts) but they are objectively valid, since the relations they represent are tautological relations.

I at first thought debates about determinism were interesting, but about 2-3 years ago, I learnt the three words that automatically (trying not to be presumptuous here) show that determinism cannot exist.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you cannot know both exactly where something is, and its velocity, if you know one the other cannot be known. This also applies to energy levels over a period of time.

If the universe is deterministic (which it isn't) than the uncertainty principle cannot hold true, but if you do a quick google search for picosecond lasers you will find that it does in fact hold true.

While I can't answer the ultimate question, I can tell you with complete certainty this:

The next person who resorts to calling another poster an idiot is going to find their ability to participate in any discussion curtailed.

If you can't make your point without name-calling, your argument is fatally undermined, in that I will deny you the ability to present it. Clear, I hope?

Krellnus wrote:I at first thought debates about determinism were interesting, but about 2-3 years ago, I learnt the three words that automatically (trying not to be presumptuous here) show that determinism cannot exist.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you cannot know both exactly where something is, and its velocity, if you know one the other cannot be known. This also applies to energy levels over a period of time.

If the universe is deterministic (which it isn't) than the uncertainty principle cannot hold true, but if you do a quick google search for picosecond lasers you will find that it does in fact hold true.

Yeah, I was just thinking of that too.
I guess one could argue though that its inevitable that the particle will be in a location, we just don't know when.

@Dael: I really don't have much knowledge on quantum theory, or whether it has been proven, or just seems to be that way. Furthermore, I have also heard that such events do have causes, but they are simply unknown as of yet, though I don't know whether that is actually true. Please enlighten me?

I don't know about proven, it's quantum theory rather than quantum law, but then relativity is a theory rather than a law too, but quantum theory shows some really interesting things, such as a single object existing in two places at the same time, and all electrons in the universe being in communication with each other. The problem with causality in the quantum world is difficult as in our world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get the same result. In the quantum world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get a different result. Quantum uncertainty principle is when particles appear and disappear from reality for split seconds, this occurs millions of times a second in our own bodies, so translate that for a whole universe, scientists believe strongly in this principle as it is the basis of Hawking Radiation. There is also a theory that shows if you put a box around something the smaller you make the box the less chance there is of the thing being in the box once its opened (Is that covered under Heisenburg's?).

walker90234 wrote:Oh, orwellss fantastc, iveread that for my personal statement (doing English). And ur being a bit if a hypocrite their with all your pontificates and verboses

Try reading for pleasure rather than by dictat. You'll find that you learn a lot more when your knowledge is not manipulated by others.

@joey:
"Try reading for pleasure rather than by dictat. You'll find that you learn a lot more when your knowledge is not manipulated by others."
You think just because I found something interesting enough that it deserved a place on my uni application that I didn't enjoy it?
Seriously, stop trying to make jabs at peoples intelligence to make yourself look bigger, as the mods have said, they're gonna kick anyone who does. it doesn't add anything.
Furthermore, you do realise that people CHOOSE the stuff to put on their personal statement, rather than having a reading list? If someone dictated a reading list to a class, the uni would notice that the entire centre had the same things on their statements, and hence know that the people had no real independent interest in the subject, hence kicking them out? Stop talking like you know me so as to make me seem small and big up your own arguments. it doesn't get you anywhere. These 'pearls of wisdom' of yours seem a bit condescending.


FURTHERMORE:
If A then B.
A.
Therefore B.

This is not subjective in any way. It is also not made up, or evolved, by humans. It is discovered by humans. Logic is not a "thing" which can be objective or subjective; it is truth. When something is logically true, or "necessary", it is defined as "true in all possible universes".

You are not using your logic and i am not using mine, because logic is not a subjective thing. It cannot be said to exist - it is just truth. It cannot be right or wrong - it is used to prove what is right or wrong. People can USE it incorrectly, but that doesn't make the logic itself correct or incorrect.


FURTHERMORE: Logic is not something that was gained through evolution.

Evolution is the process of BIOLOGICAL progression through a series of random GENETIC mutations.
I think you will agree that the ability to use logic is not a biological feature, but a brain function. As such, since evolution is the passing on of biological features, logic itself is not a product of evolution. Logic is simply a tool which we humans can understand. Like math. one pen + one pen = 2 pens regardless of human interaction (don't bother bringing in axioms, I know that line of reasoning and have used it, but it just brings us to a stupid, solopsistic state that is really kinda useless, and which none of us honestly believe).
The brainpower needed to UNDERSTAND logic might come from biological development, but the logic itself is not dependent upon the human mind.

EDIT: By the way joey, that bear thread of yours is fething awesome!

Joey wrote:

walker90234 wrote:Oh, orwellss fantastc, iveread that for my personal statement (doing English). And ur being a bit if a hypocrite their with all your pontificates and verboses

Try reading for pleasure rather than by dictat. You'll find that you learn a lot more when your knowledge is not manipulated by others.

You can bring out plenty of pretty maxims to support your point, but it remains the same ; learning is mostly a social interaction. Few enough times are you not under another's manipulation, be it that of your previous teachers, of the author, or of some other figure that influenced you greatly in your intellectual development.

There are hundreds of reason to dislike the structure in which Philosophy is currently taught, and say that it isn't optimal for teaching its material. I don't think the fact that there's a teacher-student relation is one of them, tho.

The problem with causality in the quantum world is difficult as in our world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get the same result. In the quantum world if you do the same action, to the same object, under the same conditions, you will always get a different result.

Not always different, the result will remain undifferentiated across the possible states. Basically, the light trap won't ever start singing heavy metal, but it will become impossible for us to distinguish between the range of expected states it should be in (emitting light and not emitting light). Apparently, this is why quantum scientists are starting to use the term 'superposition of states' instead of 'incoherence'.

And I think you nailed the hearth of the problem, by using the word 'world'. We differentiate both scales, quantum and classic, because the theory of relativity tells us that once past a certain point, different scaling ranges start acting like different 'universes' in regards to the set of laws we can apply to them. There's a separation there that doesn't take in account the fact that the universe isn't necessarily differentiated between scaling ranges ; if there is a difference between classical logic and quantum logic, it might be because we haven't been able yet to unify a theory regarding the universal logic. A theory which could, speculatively, take in account the fact that, for some reason, unpredictable events seem to happen in the microcosm and not in the macrocosm, and only in the incredibly short term and not the long term. Such a theory could conclude to a sort of primacy of classical explanations over quantum explanations, by some sort of primacy of the 'coherent' states over the 'superposed' states, like some sort of entropy of incoherence.

Is free will an illusion? Was I predetermined to make this post? What set of circumstances caused me to make this post? Is it possible I really didn't make this post, the universe did?

From my point of view, there is free will. Sure, there are many things that influence free will, but if there is no free will then there is no responsability. Those slimebags who claim they 'had to' rape and kill that girl are correct... and I just can't believe it. I can't bring myself to beleive it.

If they are right... then what possible justification is there for a benevolent, omnipotent God? Obviously he's not so benevolent if he made things like that happen (as implied by him being onmipotent and humans having no choice). And don't give me any 'something good comes out of it' garbage either, what possible good can come out of a girl being assaulted, beaten, having her most precious gift ripped from her, and then having her earthly existance ended in an incredibly painful manner? Because if God allows - nay, causes - this sort of stuff on earth, heaven ain't exactly going to be a picnic.

So on the level of Christian Theology, Determinism fails. If your acts are predetermined by God, then God is an hole. Chistians believe God is NOT an hole. So, we have free will... and sometimes choose very poorly.

(Note that an omnisienct God who allows free choice, knowing full well the slimebag is going to rape and kill the girl and yet fails to act to stop it isn't much better. Thus my belief that there is no benevolent God in control of the universe. This is not to say that there isn't a God in control... just that I don't beleive in his benevolence.)


The problem with Determinism is that there is no way to test for it. Can someone override their environment and make a different choice? We see examples all the time - the kid from the projects whose parents are druggies/prostitutes/whatever and yet the kid keeps out of trouble, gets good grades, goes to college, and makes a sucess of him/herself. What external force drove this particular kid to succeed, when hundreds - if not thousands - of other kids around him fail?

Or was it free will after all?

The problem with Determinism is that there is no way to test for it. Can someone override their environment and make a different choice? We see examples all the time - the kid from the projects whose parents are druggies/prostitutes/whatever and yet the kid keeps out of trouble, gets good grades, goes to college, and makes a success of him/herself. What external force drove this particular kid to succeed, when hundreds - if not thousands - of other kids around him fail?

A part of the problem is that Free Will is essentially a religious concept, to which we try to apply a physical or psychological meaning. Ideally, we should only use Free Will to get the conversation rolling, and then redefine it completely so that we do not carry over any cognitive dissonance.

So, I ask ;
1) If we were to show spontaneous actions in the subject, that is, actions that answer to no other causality than some internal event, would we have evidence of Free Will?
2) Isn't there some internal events that shouldn't be differentiated from external events, like desires, and if so what are those events?
3) In the case that it is impossible to completely isolate a subject from external or internal causality, does this mean that there is no such thing as Free Will, since the subject cannot be himself in isolation of causality?

walker90234 wrote:
FURTHERMORE: Logic is not something that was gained through evolution.

Evolution is the process of BIOLOGICAL progression through a series of random GENETIC mutations.
I think you will agree that the ability to use logic is not a biological feature, but a brain function. As such, since evolution is the passing on of biological features, logic itself is not a product of evolution. Logic is simply a tool which we humans can understand. Like math. one pen + one pen = 2 pens regardless of human interaction (don't bother bringing in axioms, I know that line of reasoning and have used it, but it just brings us to a stupid, solopsistic state that is really kinda useless, and which none of us honestly believe).
The brainpower needed to UNDERSTAND logic might come from biological development, but the logic itself is not dependent upon the human mind.

The ability to use logic and brain function in general is evolutionary, those that could survived and thrived, thus evolution.