LOGIC

Author: 3RU7AL
intp
metaethics
Anarchy
GNOSTIC
informationwar

Posts

Total: 23
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
no claim is automatically logical

in order for a claim to be considered logical, it must be demonstrated and each component defined

for example

something plus something divided by something and then multiplied by the square-root of something = 42


you can't prove me wrong - so it must be true

if you don't believe me then you are just denying mathematical facts
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,009
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Actual truth is only that which you cannot ignore. As long as you can ignore something, it doesnt matter if its true or not, as it will be ignored regardless. Thus, one must develop ability to ignore things, in order to overcome the truth and live in true ignorance where there is no difference between fact and fiction.
#3
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

    (X+Y)/Z  x  sq.rt.(W) = 42
Topic's author
#4
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
 (X+Y)/Z  x  sq.rt.(W) = 42
this is a good example of motivated-reasoning

also known as

putting the horse before the cart

also known as

confirmation bias

also known as

cherry-picking data to support a foregone conclusion

prejudiced reasoning

also known as

failure to solve undefined variables
#5
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL

One equation allows you to determine only one unknown value. It is a fundamental rule that you need as many equations as you have unknown values. Four unknowns means that we need four equations to solve the problem.

Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
One equation allows you to determine only one unknown value. It is a fundamental rule that you need as many equations as you have unknown values. Four unknowns means that we need four equations to solve the problem.
right

this example is supposed to illustrate how ridiculous logically incoherent arguments can be

like this one

god + objective-truth + moral-principle + bible = universal-morality

god = undefined variable

objective-truth = undefined variable

moral-principle = undefined variable

bible = undefined variable

universal-morality = undefined variable
Topic's author
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
  (X+Y)/Z  x  sq.rt.(W) = 42
would you call this a "true statement" ?
#8
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, if X=3, Y=2 ,Z=1, and W=49

(3x2)/1 X sqrt 49= 6 x 7= 42
Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
Yes, if X=3, Y=2 ,Z=1, and W=49

(3x2)/1 X sqrt 49= 6 x 7= 42
true based on these conditions

what about this one

god + objective-truth + moral-principle + bible = universal-morality

would you call this a "true statement" ?
#10
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,937
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Except a claim to a fact .
Topic's author
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mall
Except a claim to a fact .
please provide an example
#12
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,937
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL
I claim or assert the fact of the word fact spelled f,a,c,t.
Topic's author
#13
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mall
I claim or assert the fact of the word fact spelled f,a,c,t.

not necessarily

1. tatsache
2. hecho
3. fait
4. факт
5. fatto
6. 事实
7. 사실
8. 事実
9. fakta
10. तथ्य
#14
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,937
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL

1. tatsache
2. hecho
3. fait
4. факт
5. fatto
6. 事实
7. 사실
8. 事実
9. fakta
10. तथ्य



I assert and claim all these as facts as well.

Which all of which translates to what in English?

That's another fact.

If you really notice, it depends on how you use the word "claim". Nothing controversial there .




Topic's author
#15
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mall
Which all of which translates to what in English?
most of them are approximations of the english word "fact"

but not exact one-to-one translations
#16
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,937
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL
"most of them are approximations of the english word "fact"

but not exact one-to-one translations"

Which are more facts I claim and assert.

We can keep going on and on. Bottomline is I can claim a fact that actually is one or anything yet to be proven to be depending on how the word "claim" is used.

Topic's author
#17
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mall
We can keep going on and on. Bottomline is I can claim a fact that actually is one or anything yet to be proven to be depending on how the word "claim" is used.
it sounds like you're simply proposing definitions
#18
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,937
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Depends on how you use the word . That's any word.
Topic's author
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mall
Depends on how you use the word . That's any word.
step one - define terms

step two - build a logical claim with those terms
#20
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 398
Posts: 1,937
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Uh-huh 

9 days later

Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
The symbol "◻" typically denotes necessity in modal logic, and "¬" denotes negation. So, "◻¬(absolute nothingness)" means "It is necessarily true that absolute nothingness does not exist." If you agree with "¬(absolute nothingness -> something)," it means you believe "It is not true that absolute nothingness implies something."

Topic's author
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
inexplicable events may be "hypothetically true" but we can't properly describe inexplicable events as "provably true" - - and "provably true" is the only flavor of "true" that counts in logic - - this is obvious when you use the example of mathematics - - - nobody is going to believe an inexplicable equation or mathematical claim unless it is "provably true" - - - - i would consider PSR to be a standard of "provably true"
Topic's author
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
well, matter and antimatter can only interact by annihilating each other - - they both exist in a QUANTIFIABLE sense - - but cannot "interact" in the full range that we normally think - - neutrinos are another example, they only interact extremely weakly with normal matter because they have greatly reduced similarity, but they still interact because they maintain a fundamental similarity - - - "anything" fundamentally dissimilar would be mutually undetectable