Re: Assumption of wrongness

Subject:

Comments:
: With regard for the logic of your arguments, you don't know you didn't make a mistake somewhere in your chain of reasoning. : More specifically, "in the first place" does not mean the axioms themselves are wrong - it means that the current application of them is not correct. For example, say that the axiom we are concerned with is "1+1=2". We apply this as "1+1=2". The axiom is correct, but is our application of it? Even though our application of it is the same as the axiom itself, we can't know it's not possible to make a mistake in a one-step chain of logic. It seems ridiculous, and maybe no one has ever made a mistake of that type before (although I think someone has), but what if, for example, the real axiom read "1+1=5" and we just copied it wrong? Mistakes are present everywhere, and there is no possible way to deal with it. : And about your point that logic itself is another axiomatic system: Assume that no conclusions arrived to by logic are mistaken. Then, some conclusions arrived to by logic are mistaken, and I did not make a mistake anywhere in arriving to that conclusion. Plus, it's just common sense; we DO make mistakes in logic that do not follow its axioms that we correct later. : And, I already had responded to your argument that we can correct mistakes. We might make the same mistake again in correction, or we might add another thinking that we were wrong the first time but we weren't. : What the hell are you saying with the idea that logic is neither true nor false? Defined in terms of themselves, logical truth statements have a definite true or false value. : You say system, I say belief. We define the two terms differently, and I use belief to encompass anything not necessarily true, while you only use it to encompass an assumption not necessarily true. Everything you said about systems I would say about beliefs; your system = my belief. : Everything else aside, the possibility of you making a mistake somewhere in you explanation of why you can't rules over all. : "the virtue of a 5 is the ability to engage in an intellectual discussion with teh open intent to crush any opposing arguments" - Damn, that's good! too bad nobody famous said that, so I can quote it frequently. I guess I can still say, "Someone (famous/wise/insert your vituous characteristic here) once said..." without specifying the person. : My personal religion I have posted in my explanation of why Sambersil's thoughts are not stupid or contradictory. I forgot the heading, but it's something like how I just described the posting. It comes after this post. : : : Yes, in systems of axioms we can weed out mistakes. But, if we made them in the first place, we can make the same mistakes again or make new mistakes in correcting them. : : define "in the first place" : : you mean if the axioms themselves are wrong? : : how can that be? : : how is it wrong to say that 1 comes after 2? it's just the way we set it up. wrong doesn't mean anything in that context. : : : : :We still cannot ever be sure of any statement these axioms give us, and we can't even be certain that our corrections are weeding out more mistakes than they are making. And, while we seem to be depending solely on these axioms without any possibility for error, I am sure you have made a mistake in math before, while thinking you were depending correctly and solely upon the axioms. I have, and I think everyone else shares this experience. No matter how sure you can be about the logic, there might be a dumb error lurking there, unnoticed. There might be a dumb error lurking ANYWHERE, unnoticed, even in this reasoning that errors might be there. NO chain of logic can be assumed true just because it seems to follow all the axioms. : : you are confusing the words "true" and "correct." in an axiomatic system, correct merely means that the statement you make is properly derived from the axioms and rules. it has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH. if 2 comes after 1, and 2 and 1 are defined as we all know they are, and 3 is defined as it is, and addition means what we all were taught it means, then "1 + 2 = 3" is correct. we can prove it. it's not a matter of belief. it's not a matter of math being "true" or the rules or axioms being "mistaken". : : (im' assuming we all refer to the axioms and rules of math, the basic ones at least, which is a rather big assumption. it is tneitrely possible to say "3 + 4 = 0" or "3 * 4 = 5" and have it be correct by a different set of rules and axioms. namely, a modulo 7 system.) : : yes, we can make a mistake in deriving new rules from the axioms and rules we start out with. but that's why we have to prove everything in mathematics. to rule out mistakes. "what if you make a mistake in your proof?" you don't, because the process of proving things according to specific rules is *another axiomatic system*, called logic, and we adhere to it. it's all totally arbitrary. there is no "true" or "false", in the conventional sense of these words. : : "logic" is neither "correct", "true", "false", or "incorrect". it is a system which is useful. that's ALL. it's like saying that showering is false, or true, or correct. you could say cleaning oneself has some relevant ethical value, and make a case for that, sure. but it's not incorrect in the sense that "1 + 2 = 7" (std math rules) is incorrect. showering is just useful, not "true". math itself cannot be incorrect. : : : When rules are defined in terms of themselves, I wouldn't really call them beliefs. : : of course not. "let's make it so that 1 comes before 2" is not a belief. it's a decision, a rule that was set in place by people and declared convention for the purposes of convenience. : : : Beliefs are things that do not run contrary to logic, but are not derived from logic either, whether or not the logic is correct. And I have a lot of beliefs (I play chess too). : : beliefs can be entered into the logical process. in fact, logic is sort of like an axiomatic system where the axioms are left blank. logic is about what you can believe if you *already* believe something else. that is, "the pope is green", "all green things come from mars", "therefor, the pope comes from mars" is a perfectly valid argument. if we already believed the two propositions, we'd have to beleive the conclusion. but, you ahve to have an axiom to start with, that is, a thing which is declared and is known a priori (from before). when i tried to make something of your perception thing, or when descartes tried to make something of the thinking thing problem, it was starting with 1 axiom that was accepted from teh start with no proof. : : the problem youre having, then, it sounds like, is that you can't accept that people could use a logical system without making a mistake. so, you accept the perception axiom, but you won't play with it, cuase you might misuse logic in doing so. or, even, logic ITSELF might be flawed. if the rules of logic are flawed, then FIND THE ERROR. (this means you have to actually learn about logic.) if you theorize something, TELL PEOPLE about it, people who aren't fools, and THEY'LL find the error. (btw, fool = someone who won't accept a valid conclusion if they accept the premises.) : : : I believe in science, : : another useful *system*, not a body of knowledge, a set of beliefs, or a group of people. believing in science is like believing in showering. you mean you believe that people do it? or that they 'should' do it? what? : : : and I believe in my personal religion which I don't think I have posted here yet. : : i haven't seen it, so not recently, at least. i'd like to, tho. 5 spirituality fascinates me. : : : There's nothing wrong with beliefs; they DON'T run counter to logic. Math is not a belief; conclusions derived from math just aren't necessarily correct because of the possibility of a mistake. : : : I ACCEPT beliefs, I just also recognize their non-logical status. : : beleifs don't run counter to logic any more than numbers run counter to math. logic is the system by which we manage and derive beleifs from one another. : : : : : About my restating my point of view endlessly: it's because I don't think the people who read it understood it the first time, and if I explain it in a manner that applies more directly to the issue at hand I think they will agree with me and realize what I mean. : : keep in mind your target audience here. in my opinion, even a stupid 5 is at least going about it in the right way, with a solid intellect. : : i would like to appologize. rereading my last post, i realize that i was more aggressive than i needed to be, and put a lot of things in language that seemed intentionally insulting once i had cooled down. not that i didn't mean anything of what i said, but i should have said it more calmly. the virtue of a 5 is the ability to engage in an intellectual discussion with teh open intent to crush any opposing arguments. teh hard part is to avoid being mean about it. : : you piss me off, becasue you remind me of myself. and keep in mind, i'm a 5, too, so that is the greatest compliment i can give someone. but dont let it go to your head. the worst thing you can do is to think you are done. it's robbing yoruself of wonder and the world of a great thinker. i came to the realization about a year ago that i already know a great deal more than a lot of people, and have teh CAPACITY to know and *understand* a great deal more than MOST people, yet when i die (sometime in a few hundred years, i hope), i will know and understand little more than i did when i started. and if i let myself going around thinking that i'm done thinking, i'll end up with even less. : : isaac

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: