Allah is a logical entity.
-
Here's a formal argument to show that statement "logic is relative" is nothing more than playground bullshit for 17 year olds who think they know everything about t3h everythinnz
The statement "logic is relative" is a contradictory statement. Making a claim on the nature of logic is an objective statement by itself because if logic was relative then that statement could not be made. The fact that you claim "logic is relative" is making an objective statement and therefore logic is not relative. If you make the claim "logic COULD be relative" then that implies there's a chance that logic is objective, and if that's the case then said objective logic will rule over the subjective because there will be a facet of logic which remains objective. So no matter which way you try to break it down, logic stays objective.
whatever you'r point was, I'm not interrested hypocrite!
Of course you're not - because you can't prove yourself.
yeah, it's a good thing it's not a bachelor in linguistic's is'nt it? So you want to come of smart by yet again attacking the way that i write, good on you. As for the rest of your thread...man you are a fool. When YOU observe something, it would be YOU'R observation of it that is written down. Then someone else can observe and make HIS (subjective) observation. And the two of you can see if they allign. If several people get the same observation ,it is made a fact. Like, the world was flat once...
Lol.
-
The statement "logic is relative" is a contradictory statement. Making a claim on the nature of logic is an objective statement by itself because if logic was relative then that statement could not be made.
Oh YOU think so? interresting
The fact that you claim "logic is relative" is making an objective statement and therefore logic is not relative.
How on earth do you make that an objective statement. I'm honestly wondering. If it comes from someone expressing an oppinion. You find that objective? now that is interresting.
If you make the claim "logic COULD be relative" then that implies there's a chance that logic is objective, and if that's the case then said objective logic will rule over the subjective because there will be a facet of logic which remains objective. So no matter which way you try to break it down, logic stays objective.
say you, I dont agree, and you have'nt made you'r point at all.
Of course you're not - because you can't prove yourself.
You are right i can't an neither can you. But we can share, or attack eachother with our subjective oppinions, a shame you cannot see this. But try and pull your head out of your arse, and maybe that will help
-
Thank you neo for the breath of objective and dare I say, refreshing air, and one of the nails in the coffin to it's all subjective really, no no it is...
no, not really. that you dont know what you're talking about is not my problem at all. But by all means, please stick to whatever you learned in highschool from books that are 10 year's old. And I will continue to focus more on recent *.edu documents.
If the foundation is lacking, not much point in building on it is there for you? Focus on what you want, doesn't make what you wrote any less of a hilarity. Math degree, my potted plant's arse.
There's no hope for humankind when this happens...prepare for doom.
-
How on earth do you make that an objective statement. I'm honestly wondering. If it comes from someone expressing an oppinion. You find that objective? now that is interresting.
Because you are saying for certain that logic is relative.
say you, I dont agree, and you have'nt made you'r point at all.
You don't agree on what grounds? State your argument or shut up.
You are right i can't an neither can you. But we can share, or attack eachother with our subjective oppinions, a shame you cannot see this. But try and pull your head out of your arse, and maybe that will help
No. Wrong. I have proven myself - twice. I've shown you an argument of why logic is objective and I've asked you to disprove objective logical statements. You haven't provided a valid argument for why logic is subjective nor have you disproved the objective statements I've provided. If there's anyone here pulling things out of his arse it's you, not me.
-
Because you are saying for certain that logic is relative.
Nothing Neo. Absolutely nothing is for certain i thought taht was pretty obvious i thought that.
You don't agree on what grounds? State your argument or shut up.
I have. As everything is experienced through 6 billion (supposedly) different 5 sense reality's, that is the amount of variables to a truth there is then. We will to death support the view that we like, I will demonstrate, dont take this as an attack, I have cooled down, from this mornings quagmire.
Didn't Plato say this bout 2000 years ago?
Pet idea? Yes, if you consider 2000+ years of academia "pet idea" in the face of some post-modernist relativistic bullshit, yes.
I like the idea, thus age is a stamp of approval (allthough these academics did say earth was flat based on at the time objective observation). I do not like the idea, thus age is something outdated and wierd. It's all personal perspectives, and both view's on this abstract science of objectivity is perfectly valid, and seriously concidered by science. M theory and quantum physics is not excactly build upon facts of the matter now is it?
No. Wrong. I have proven myself - twice. I've shown you an argument of why logic is objective and I've asked you to disprove objective logical statements.
No you have given me the typical blahblah that everybody from your side of the fence gives. An incredible amount of words, actually saying very little. that is what you have given me.
You haven't provided a valid argument for why logic is subjective nor have you disproved the objective statements I've provided. If there's anyone here pulling things out of his arse it's you, not me.
I have produced 2 allready. It's a shame you are unable to think outside the box. But ok, I will cut it out in cardboard for you, but it will take some time then.
-
If the foundation is lacking, not much point in building on it is there for you? Focus on what you want, doesn't make what you wrote any less of a hilarity. Math degree, my potted plant's arse.
I gave you evidence as calculating 3 dimensional fractals in realtime can only be achieved by someone with an advanced math knowledge. But if you refuse to view evidence, because you dislike my personality. what does that say about you, really?
Who will cause the doom? The arsehole willing to listen to arguments given that they are good, nomatter what arsehole comes with them. Or village idiot, that will only listen to sources they like, and think is nice.
The evidence was in the file.
-
I just remembered this one about the obvious flaw of logic in real life.
A stone cannot fly of itself. My mom cannot fly of her self. Ergo, my mom is a stone.
In all it's simplicity, brilliant.
-
I gave you evidence as calculating 3 dimensional fractals in realtime can only be achieved by someone with an advanced math knowledge. But if you refuse to view evidence, because you dislike my personality. what does that say about you, really?
Why are you exagerrating? You gave me a link to what you claim is a program? Who even knows if it's yours...I'm sorry I'm not about to be d/l any weird stuff off from the net especially from someone claiming to have a math degree and then failing miserably to prove it in their posts alone.
Who will cause the doom? The arsehole willing to listen to arguments given that they are good, nomatter what arsehole comes with them. Or village idiot, that will only listen to sources they like, and think is nice.
The evidence was in the file.
You have really lost it, you are getting hysterical lol People claiming degrees and flaunting them in other's faces are sad and pathetic little posers who usually fail at what they set out to prove. Thus, their last ditch efforts when there is nothing left to fall back upon...oh look! I have a degree but I just wrote crap exposing my so called intellect to the world to be laughed at!! /whatever.
-
Why are you exagerrating? You gave me a link to what you claim is a program? Who even knows if it's yours...I'm sorry I'm not about to be d/l any weird stuff off from the net especially from someone claiming to have a math degree and then failing miserably to prove it in their posts alone.
I can put wahtever message you want me to in the program and repost it.
Where is it that i have failed? we have not spoken about math, only an age old math joke?You have really lost it, you are getting hysterical lol People claiming degrees and flaunting them in other's faces are sad and pathetic little posers who usually fail at what they set out to prove
Neo wrote
God you're stupid. Seriously, what school did you go to? Because they obviously didn't do their job. I've read some ridiculous things on the internet but this takes the cake.
And i answered him what my formal education is. I did this one single time, wich is hardly flaunting anything. It was answering a question.
Thus, their last ditch efforts when there is nothing left to fall back upon...oh look! I have a degree but I just wrote crap exposing my so called intellect to the world to be laughed at!! /whatever.
indeed whatever. That you dislike me and thus refuse to view evidence backing up my claim based on that, would be your God damn problem.
-
Nothing Neo. Absolutely nothing is for certain i thought taht was pretty obvious i thought that.
This is a logical contradiction. If nothing was for certain, then neither is that statement. By making the statement ?absolutely nothing is for certain? you?re entering a world of paradox because you?re saying on one hand that ?nothing? is absolute, yet you?re making that fact an absolute. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of philosophies based on nihilism where ?everything is relative?.
I like the idea, thus age is a stamp of approval (allthough these academics did say earth was flat based on at the time objective observation). I do not like the idea, thus age is something outdated and wierd. It's all personal perspectives, and both view's on this abstract science of objectivity is perfectly valid, and seriously concidered by science. M theory and quantum physics is not excactly build upon facts of the matter now is it?
First of all, Plato and 2000+ years of academia was not my proof ? that was to illustrate that the idea of logic being objective isn?t a ?pet idea? of mine. Secondly, Quantum physics is built upon observation (important note quantum theory does not state that reality is subjective, it states that our interpretation of reality is subjective); M theory is built upon solid theoretical world and is only limited by our observational capabilities as of right now. Also, I'm not talking of scientific theories here so please once again stop obfuscating the topic.
No you have given me the typical blahblah that everybody from your side of the fence gives. An incredible amount of words, actually saying very little. that is what you have given me.
To be honest, it wasn?t that many words but you?re a math major so I understand that you get lost if I use more than a sentence.
Anyway, I?ve given you plenty of examples. I?ve asked you to disprove the notion that 2+2 = 5, which you have not. I?ve asked you to disprove Pythagoras? idea of objective proof via ?x? + y? <> z??, which you have not. I?ve asked you to demonstrate that something can come form nothing, which again (to nobody?s surprise mind you) you have not. These are all objective statements that pertain to our reality. Then I?ve gone forth to give you a formal argument on why logic is objective, which you have not countered except to say that you ?disagree?. Yes, I?m glad you disagree ? but I don?t really care if you don?t show why you disagree, in fact no one does. If you disagree, let?s see why you do ? if not, please be so kind to keep your asinine opinions to yourself where it won?t pollute the eyes and minds of sane minded people.
I have produced 2 allready. It's a shame you are unable to think outside the box. But ok, I will cut it out in cardboard for you, but it will take some time then.
You have produced none, let?s not bullshit here. Your counter to 2+2=5 was a jocular statement trying to show the difference between measured values and integers; you then proceeded to show that because a calculator rounds a number for simplicity mathematics does not pertain to reality and 2+2 can indeed become 5. I quote you here
It's a joke ...
I've shown you why you're joke is a terrible one and why it does not pertain to reality because rounding is only done to make things more simplistic and 2.4+2.4 is indeed 4.8, and 2.0+2.0 is indeed 4.0. Thus you have countered nothing because my original challenge (to prove 2+2=5) still stands.
And the way you countered the second one is by restating your disagreement with the subject in question, which is not a counter but rather a broken record playing over and over because it has shit all to say.
Me ?...and this is why logic is objective?
You ?I disagree?
Me ?Why??
You ?Because I disagree?No. No matter what your math professors tell you that is not a proper argument.
And last but not least, we have this little gem here
I just remembered this one about the obvious flaw of logic in real life.
A stone cannot fly of itself. My mom cannot fly of her self. Ergo, my mom is a stone.
In all it's simplicity, brilliant.
That is not a flaw in logic; that is a flaw in your premise. And you call yourself a math graduate. Fermat and Newton are crying in their graves as you speak.
-
A post par excellence neo, which answers all of 'Mel's' unanswered questions regarding failure.
That you dislike me and thus refuse to view evidence backing up my claim based on that, would be your God damn problem.
If you had showed evidence we would be getting somewhere.
-
I gave you evidence as calculating 3 dimensional fractals in realtime can only be achieved by someone with an advanced math knowledge0. But if you refuse to view evidence, because you dislike my personality. what does that say about you, really?
Who will cause the doom? The arsehole willing to listen to arguments given that they are good, nomatter what arsehole comes with them. Or village idiot, that will only listen to sources they like, and think is nice.
The evidence was in the file.
My apologies for jumping in at such a hysterical point in the thread. I've been following the replies and wanted to chip in with my two cents.
Mel Tooting your own (broken) horn will not further your points. Your metaphors and allegories aren't helping either. I have not seen you present a shred of even plausible..'evidence' (as you like to call it) in response of the statements put forth by Neo.
You've gone from running around in circles (i.e. "i disagree" why? "well because I do") to tooting your own horn. Perhaps you'd like to get off your high (relatively)speaking horse and present some credible proof that goes beyond your hippie'world is so preeety and what i see is perfect in my eyes n same to you' nonsense.
I await such evidence, as do the others who are interested in this topic.
Sincerely,
Napalm. -
This is a logical contradiction. If nothing was for certain, then neither is that statement. By making the statement ?absolutely nothing is for certain? you?re entering a world of paradox because you?re saying on one hand that ?nothing? is absolute, yet you?re making that fact an absolute. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of philosophies based on nihilism where ?everything is relative?.
Oppinion. You are telling me what you think I mean.
First of all, Plato and 2000+ years of academia was not my proof ? that was to illustrate that the idea of logic being objective isn?t a ?pet idea? of mine.
No it is a pet idea of many people.
Secondly, Quantum physics is built upon observation (important note quantum theory does not state that reality is subjective, it states that our interpretation of reality is subjective);
THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!!! And there is NOTHING but our personal interpretation of reality. I can not know that you'r reality is the same as mine, but we can agree on certain things, that we observe in the same way.
M theory is built upon solid theoretical world and is only limited by our observational capabilities as of right now. Also, I'm not talking of scientific theories here so please once again stop obfuscating the topic.
They link. Im happy that you agree with me on M-theory. Loko at what you say. "we have this idea, and belive that at some point we can prove it" is that objective?
To be honest, it wasn?t that many words but you?re a math major so I understand that you get lost if I use more than a sentence.
No try and get a bullhorn. We all know that louder is more true. You have used the same old tired circular arguments that I heave heard a million times before. And they are all up for interpretation. This does not make it facts.
Anyway, I?ve given you plenty of examples. I?ve asked you to disprove the notion that 2+2 = 5, which you have not.
But what i did prove was that anything, is up for interpretation in its own right. There is nothing silly about large values of a number. What is silly is using it to prove something in "the real world". Because in the theoretical world that is math, it is possible.
I?ve asked you to disprove Pythagoras? idea of objective proof via ?x? + y? <> z??, which you have not.
What pythagoras forgot was the fact that there are only the framework that we set up to work within, like math. So saying something like a=a and not a^a makes sense since we all agree what a is to begin with.
This is basic and pretty forward stuff. But if you want to follow a specific path of knowledge seeking. be my guest. By all means, limit yourself.I?ve asked you to demonstrate that something can come form nothing, which again (to nobody?s surprise mind you) you have not.
Within what framework? The world? Natural laws? what?
These are all objective statements that pertain to our reality. Then I?ve gone forth to give you a formal argument on why logic is objective, which you have not countered except to say that you ?disagree?. Yes, I?m glad you disagree ? but I don?t really care if you don?t show why you disagree, in fact no one does. If you disagree, let?s see why you do ? if not, please be so kind to keep your asinine opinions to yourself where it won?t pollute the eyes and minds of sane minded people.
ahh, getting worked up are we? Yes i showed you excactly why I disagree. because you want to prove something to me within the framwork of a language, thus use the tool itself to prove that the tool is right. wrong!
That is not a flaw in logic that is a flaw in your premise.
Good catch. finally we're getting somewhere. So if the premis for something is skewed to begin with. Like setting up the framework you want to be within and start to define your own framework, using itself to do so, you are off track?
And you call yourself math graduate.
yes
Fermat and Newton are crying in their graves as you speak.
I have no knowledge of the unseen, what else do they do down there?
-
A post par excellence neo, which answers all of 'Mel's' unanswered questions regarding failure.
That you dislike me and thus refuse to view evidence backing up my claim based on that, would be your God damn problem.
If you had showed evidence we would be getting somewhere.
'get the file
-
I gave you evidence as calculating 3 dimensional fractals in realtime can only be achieved by someone with an advanced math knowledge0. But if you refuse to view evidence, because you dislike my personality. what does that say about you, really?
Who will cause the doom? The arsehole willing to listen to arguments given that they are good, nomatter what arsehole comes with them. Or village idiot, that will only listen to sources they like, and think is nice.
The evidence was in the file.
My apologies for jumping in at such a hysterical point in the thread. I've been following the replies and wanted to chip in with my two cents.
Mel Tooting your own (broken) horn will not further your points. Your metaphors and allegories aren't helping either. I have not seen you present a shred of even plausible..'evidence' (as you like to call it) in response of the statements put forth by Neo.
You've gone from running around in circles (i.e. "i disagree" why? "well because I do") to tooting your own horn. Perhaps you'd like to get off your high (relatively)speaking horse and present some credible proof that goes beyond your hippie'world is so preeety and what i see is perfect in my eyes n same to you' nonsense.
I await such evidence, as do the others who are interested in this topic.
Sincerely,
Napalm.Nice first post. Mod's please check IP
-
Peace Napalm and welcome, I could get used to you around here. It's apparently much needed.
Nice first post. Mod's please check IP
First it was hysteria, now it's paranoia lol
-
This is a logical contradiction. If nothing was for certain, then neither is that statement. By making the statement absolutely nothing is for certain youre entering a world of paradox because youre saying on one hand that nothing is absolute, yet youre making that fact an absolute. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of philosophies based on nihilism where everything is relative.
Oppinion. You are telling me what you think I mean.
No. Read it again 'This is a logical contradiction'. All else he said follows from said statement. It is logical.
First of all, Plato and 2000+ years of academia was not my proof that was to illustrate that the idea of logic being objective isnt a pet idea of mine.
No it is a pet idea of many people.
Quit with the asinine statements. Either that or go and look up the meaning of 'pet ideas'. FYI, I don't think you'll find it in dictionary.com.
Secondly, Quantum physics is built upon observation (important note quantum theory does not state that reality is subjective, it states that our interpretation of reality is subjective);
THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!!! And there is NOTHING but our personal interpretation of reality. I can not know that you'r reality is the same as mine, but we can agree on certain things, that we observe in the same way.
No. Re-read (or better yet, understand) Neo's points. The points at hand are not our 'interpretations of reality'.
To be honest, it wasnt that many words but youre a math major so I understand that you get lost if I use more than a sentence.
No try and get a bullhorn. We all know that louder is more true. You have used the same old tired circular arguments that I heave heard a million times before. And they are all up for interpretation. This does not make it facts.
The only one who has presented anything remotely circular in this discussion is you. Please learn the definition of 'interpretations' (preferrably from a source not named dictionary.com).
Anyway, Ive given you plenty of examples. Ive asked you to disprove the notion that 2+2 = 5, which you have not.
But what i did prove was that anything, is up for interpretation in its own right. There is nothing silly about large values of a number. What is silly is using it to prove something in "the real world". Because in the theoretical world that is math, it is possible.
Again, please refer to my earlier points in the post.
Ive asked you to disprove Pythagoras idea of objective proof via x? + y? <> z?, which you have not.
What pythagoras forgot was the fact that there are only the framework that we set up to work within, like math. So saying something like a=a and not a^a makes sense since we all agree what a is to begin with.
This is basic and pretty forward stuff. But if you want to follow a specific path of knowledge seeking. be my guest. By all means, limit yourself.Are you sure you have a degree in mathematics?
Ive asked you to demonstrate that something can come form nothing, which again (to nobodys surprise mind you) you have not.
Within what framework? The world? Natural laws? what?
The 'framework' has already been provided. If you have not discovered it after so many pages and posts, tis not our responsibility to spoon feed it to you.
These are all objective statements that pertain to our reality. Then Ive gone forth to give you a formal argument on why logic is objective, which you have not countered except to say that you disagree. Yes, Im glad you disagree but I dont really care if you dont show why you disagree, in fact no one does. If you disagree, lets see why you do if not, please be so kind to keep your asinine opinions to yourself where it wont pollute the eyes and minds of sane minded people.
ahh, getting worked up are we? Yes i showed you excactly why I disagree. because you want to prove something to me within the framwork of a language, thus use the tool itself to prove that the tool is right. wrong!
You have not showed us anything. I repeat, anything.
That is not a flaw in logic that is a flaw in your premise.
Good catch. finally we're getting somewhere. So if the premis for something is skewed to begin with. Like setting up the framework you want to be within and start to define your own framework, using itself to do so, you are off track?
Again, refer to points made earlier in the post. Stop trying to erect 'frameworks' (i.e barriers/red herrings) in an attempt to disguise your utter lack of understanding of the issues being discussed.
And you call yourself math graduate.
yes
Sad.
-
Peace Napalm and welcome, I could get used to you around here. It's apparently much needed.
Nice first post. Mod's please check IP
First it was hysteria, now it's paranoia lol
Thanks .
Mel I've been around much longer than you. I suppose I should credit your amazing lack of understanding and idiocy for bringing me out of the woodworks and putting an end to my lurker status.
-
Oppinion. You are telling me what you think I mean.
You said "Absolutely nothing is for certain i thought taht was pretty obvious i thought that."
When you say "absolutely nothing" it's an objective statement. I'm not assuming what I think you're meaning - I'm telling you that according to English, that is what you meant. I understand English isn't your strong point but if you want to debate please first learn how to construct statements that imply what you want them to imply.
So what did you mean? That only certain things are uncertain? Or all things are uncertain? Or no things are uncertain? These are the only three possibilitites - pick one and I'll still prove you wrong like I have the last few pages.
No it is a pet idea of many people.
No.
THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!!! And there is NOTHING but our personal interpretation of reality. I can not know that you'r reality is the same as mine, but we can agree on certain things, that we observe in the same way.
-
Don't type in capitals, it's annoying and makes you look like a spastic idiot
-
You obviously fail to discern the difference between reality and perception. It's a fact that we all see the colour green differently - does that mean the colour green changes wavelengths when it enters the retina of certain people? No. Green maintains its wavelength, but our brains precieve it differently; objective and subjective. Reality is objective, our senses are not.
They link. Im happy that you agree with me on M-theory. Loko at what you say. "we have this idea, and belive that at some point we can prove it" is that objective?
Well of course they link M-theory tries to bridge relativity and quantum mechanics, but that wasn't my point. My point is for you to stop obfuscating the topic. I'm not talking about science - I'm talking about logic; they have their differences.
No try and get a bullhorn. We all know that louder is more true. You have used the same old tired circular arguments that I heave heard a million times before. And they are all up for interpretation. This does not make it facts.
If you've heard them so many times why not try to prove me wrong instead of simply saying you disagree? I'm giving you your chance to repair your ego and prove me wrong - do it, if you can.
But what i did prove was that anything, is up for interpretation in its own right.
No.
There is nothing silly about large values of a number. What is silly is using it to prove something in "the real world". Because in the theoretical world that is math, it is possible.
What the hell? I've already addressed this issue and countered it - go back to the last page and stop repeating yourself.
What pythagoras forgot was the fact that there are only the framework that we set up to work within, like math. So saying something like a=a and not a^a makes sense since we all agree what a is to begin with.
a=a makes sense because we know what "a" is to begin with? No. It's because "a" can represent something arbitrary and if something else also represents said arbitrary object then it is also "a", hence a = a. You're a closet nihlist aren't you?
Within what framework? The world? Natural laws? what?
Any framework. Nothing = lack of any attribute. Something = has one or more attributes. Go crazy.
ahh, getting worked up are we? Yes i showed you excactly why I disagree. because you want to prove something to me within the framwork of a language, thus use the tool itself to prove that the tool is right. wrong!
Expand on your "lolz framework" bullshit, please.
So if the premis for something is skewed to begin with. Like setting up the framework you want to be within and start to define your own framework, using itself to do so, you are off track?
There is a logical start to all premises that everyone can agree with and these are logical objectivities (Descartes cogito ergo sum). So again, you've proved sweet fuck all. Try again.
-
-
...Bohm is now part of the pantheon, when before prominent physicists had asserted that it is impossible even to formulate an alternative to the orthodox "Copenhagen'' interpretation of quantum mechanics. Indeed, there now seems to be increasing support among physicists for exorcising the notion of observer-created reality from the foundations of physical science. Phd. Eric Dennis
And as with all these guy's I do agree that there are constants. Things like natural law's that seem's locked, or in the words of Bohm
For example, would it be possible for us to choose the natural laws... in accordance with our tastes...? The fact that we cannot actually do this shows that these laws have an objective content, in the sense that they represent some kind of necessity that is independent of our wills and of the way in which we think about things." D. Bohm, Causality and Chance in Modern Physics, pp. 165, Harper (1961).
So now we have a fixed framwork. Like any other computer interpretator. The rest is interpretation of that framework done by the individual program itself. To ask me if something can be created out of nothing, is so mindless it's funny. We cannot enter a state of nothingness, without leaving the body. And the minute we do that, the very experiment becomes void, due to the fact that we are no longer in the framwork we set out to prove/disprove.
Yes, I am a deciple of the holographic universe idea, I admit so.
But let me ask any of you this. Do we have a soul. If so, where is it?