Reality and Proof

[Parallo]

Logic is simply a process that guides you in moving to conclusions from a set of premises or assumptions.  A system can be completely logical even if it's based on false premises.

Logic is the art of differentiating between rational and flawed arguments. What you said is not logic.

[eldoth_terevan]

Logic itself per se is not so easily defined. Not that I am taking anybody's side here.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Alogic&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[Parallo]

The task of the logician is to set down rules for distinguishing between valid and fallacious inference, between rational and flawed arguments.

Logic is the art of differentiating between rational and flawed arguments.

[zanzibar]

Both examples are sound arguments, however the premises they're based on are questionable.  The arguments themselves though are completely one hundred percent logically sound.

Here's more from that wiki article, which I recomend you read if you still don't understand:

        * Soundness, which means that the system's rules of derivation will never let you infer anything false, so long as you start with only true premises. So if a system is sound (and its axioms, if any, are true), then the theorems of a sound formal system are the truths. All of the theorems of a system that has no axioms are its truths and sometimes the truths of such a system are called 'logical truths.' (Note that if a system is not consistent, it cannot be sound. This is because a contradiction is always false, so if two theorems contradict at least one is false.)

[Parallo]

So you agree that its not sound logic? Thats what I ment.

[zanzibar]

So you agree that its not sound logic? Thats what I ment.

No, it is sound logic.  That's the whole point!  You can have a logical conclusion deduced from false premises!

[Parallo]

But its not reasonable to think that your intuition is a place to look for true premises. You have just brought up a slight misuse of a word which would commonly be acceptabe and derailed an entire thread. Congratulations

[Datruth]

But its not reasonable to think that your intuition is a place to look for true premises. You have just brought up a slight misuse of a word which would commonly be acceptabe and derailed an entire thread. Congratulations

Basically, what he was trying to say was

The premise, the facts you start out with, are wrong.

Your logical deduction, the process you went about trying to prove it was correct.

But if you start out with the wrong premise, such as anytime you subtract a number, you add it to.

Thus, 2 - 2 = 2.

The process, i did that, was correct. Subtracted 2, added 2.

But my premise was wrong, when you subtract a number, YOU DO NOT ADD IT, that is another operation altogether.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The facts you started out with were wrong.

The way you proved them, was right.

I can't get it any simpler than that.

~~Datruth

[Parallo]

Yes, yes I know. Theres no need to make it any simpler.

[Datruth]

Another reason why i think color exists, is that NOTHING is absolute.

Zanzibar cannot name a single thing, that is situational in some way, as color and our brain is.

So why hate color? Just because it only exists in our brains?

It's not like, everything else in this world, is absolutely known.

~~Datruth

[eldoth_terevan]

"NOTHING is absolute" is an absolute statement.

[zanzibar]

"NOTHING is absolute" is an absolute statement.

You beat me to it.


Anyway, all I wanted to do was make a comment on the nature of what people believe to be absolute objective reality.

[Datruth]

"NOTHING is absolute" is an absolute statement.

Yes, it's an absolute statement, made in a limited world.


Everything we percieve is seen through a frame of reference, which in itself is flawed.
We also have Heisenberg's uncertinty principle, to interact with something forever changes it.
Backed up by chaos theory, showing very minute changes can cause HUGE change.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So working off the framework that nothing is absolute, not anything we percieve anyways, i deduced color must exist.

Because, even though color is inherently faulty, by only existing in our minds, so is every other object deduced by us in this world.

Basically, drunk man's talk, we have to let color join our group, because the same fault he has, is had by everything we observe.

So it only exists in our brains.
Doesn't everything?
We know nothing absolutely.

And that was my point 

* Datruth bows

~~Datruth

[zanzibar]

So working off the framework that nothing is absolute, not anything we percieve anyways, i deduced color must exist.  Because, even though color is inherently faulty, by only existing in our minds, so is every other object deduced by us in this world.

Your reasoning sounds flowery, but it makes no sense.


Edit:  The post below this one is a good one.

[eldoth_terevan]

The universe is not limited, man's perception of the universe is limited. Solipsism is egocentrism become rationalization, not reason. No different than ancient people's belief that the universe revolved around them.

Hisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has everything to do with the observation and measurement of particles in applied quantum mechanics, and nothing to do with philosophy.

If you have a problem with that statement then actually study Hisenberg's work, a basic reading in the history of science by Sagan, various published applications of quantum theory models by damn near everybody from Einstein to Hawking, and follow it up with the lectures of Richard Feynman.

The actuality of conditions that cause light to be changed by materials in the world has nothing to do with you perceiving it or not. This is measureable, it is demonstrable, it is elementary.

Eldoth cracks a beer, puts down the spectroscope, and goes back to measuring stellar parallax on his spiffy new theodolite. He does not bow, as he can take no credit for any of this and would be mortified to do so.