|
|
Re: Physics from logic?(Check my math)
Posted:
May 5, 2012 2:59 PM
|
|
On May 5, 6:37 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:29eb1c58-8e8a-4edf-90d9-1e25ec3bb4fe@g6g2000pbq.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 3:29 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:057a1a9b-3d6c-4e42-9a99-399f67e56ed0@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com...
> >> > On May 5, 2:34 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >> >> "jbriggs444" <jbriggs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >>news:e625699f-e904-4956-a0e9-50383e81059e@f5g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > On Apr 25, 10:36 am, Mike <maj...@charter.net> wrote:
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> >> I think that what I'm doing is to say that WHATEVER is at the
> >> >> >> bottom
> >> >> >> of it all, whatever is the most fundamental common object of
> >> >> >> everything including spacetime, energy and particles, that
> >> >> >> fundamental
> >> >> >> object would still be described with a proposition and would still
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> subject to the rules of logic so that consistency would be
> >> >> >> maintained
> >> >> >> with everything else.
>
> >> >> > Firstly, you have the unsupported assertion that there is
> >> >> > something at the bottom of it all.
>
> >> >> Unsupported and unsupportable.
> >> <snip>
> >> > LV, why are you talking about a secret? Instead you should be
> >> > enlightened.
>
> >> There are no secrets, only taboos.
>
> >> > The discourse here, where the point is enlightenment,
> >> > assume nothing, there's nothing to contradict. Then you can be fair
> >> > and impartial. I just don't see any way you can "betray" something
> >> > that's any way "false".
>
> >> You are being inconsistent here, at best poetic.
>
> > At best? At best "poetic"?
>
> Yes, at best so, otherwise that is just inconsistent (self-contradictory)
> blubbing: one thing is rational thinking and the problem of rationality,
> another is what goes and stands beyond any rationality, which you will not
> be able to define or grasp from within rationality itself. Period.
>
> > No I don't have anything but that would be consistent.
>
> Can you now see the absurdity of your statement?
>
> > That wouldn't
> > work for me, I'm interested in enlightenment and believe in that there
> > is consistency.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not one of your philosophers who resorts to the absurd.
>
> The genuine paradoxes are the way *not* to fall pray of the absurd: you
> rather get your head out of the math-tao books only.
>
> > It's turtles all the way down (shouted the old lady from the audience)
> > and that's consistent.
>
> No, it isn't, for the very reasons explained initially: you cannot be
> _consistent_ from outside (from beyond) every rational discourse, it does
> not make any sense, and the regressio ad absurdum is properly a
> *paralogism*, not a genuine paradox, i.e. it is something that indicates the
> untenability of a position but is not really essential to the matter in
> question, and can always be overcome, in a revised or more comprehensive
> theory.
>
> > Oh as a philosopher you would get to the absurd,
>
> On the contrary, it is the naive pseudo-philosophy that you express here
> that directly leads to the absurd and then to the weak thinking, i.e. to the
> renounce to rationality. I shall assume you just do not have the necessary
> philosophical knowledge and maturity to see what the absurd even is.
>
> > and then whether it's
> > paradox or here a horizon of knowledge that is a paradox (and LV I
> > don't see that it is paradoxical because constructively there can be a
> > construction where there is no difference from the horizon and the sea
> > and sky or its partitions). Then paradoxes are a starting point not
> > the end.
>
> And I didn't say anything (substantially) different than this statement of
> yours. Indeed, I personally believe in the fundamental role of inductive
> reasoning.
>
> > Heh, at best poetic. Heh, at least.
>
> Yes, that would fit too.
>
> -LV
Pancritical Rationalism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancritical_rationalism
I think it fair to say that most philosophers who believe in logic are
rationalists. It's not generally discarded, rationality, to explain
the completeness of induction, whether or not rationality's held to
hold, generally.
And, among logicians are those who don't believe in any true paradox
as it would be inconsistent. That's not to say they can't be
discussed, obviously these paradoxes are framed in the systems of
interest in terms of external expectations, eg externally that the
Zeno's runner at 1 m/s does get all the way there, and internally that
the specification for the Russell set carries a definition for itelf
in the definition of its elements.
Being a rationalist, I expect neither rationality nor observation of
fact from others, except insofar as that they would as well be
rational (generally in the sense of their regular course). Then for
the observation of fact bit, it varies.
You want irrational go elsewhere, this place is full of Ph.D.s. You
want simple pablum that doesn't conflict with your worldview, stay
home.
Then, in regards to rationalism, and critically rationalism, I don't
make room for anything else in science. So, call it art if you will,
but science is rational. Carry it out with style if you will, science
is rational.
Then, I could go back to the survey of mathematical knowledge, there's
still some bits missing here about, for example, no use of transfinite
cardinals in analysis, and a deduced synthetic real number system that
has a continuum between zero and one, in an order: the.
LV, the numbers are uncaring, but they won't spite you. Only humans
are so animal.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
|
|
