Allah is a logical entity.
-
Tsk tsk...such strong emotions...On any forum it's wise not to take the word of anyone when they make claims...but to verify what they have actually posted. That is the best judge, after all we can verify empirical evidence, the rest is all theoretical, nooo its all relative or as some would say, only in their head.
-
Tsk tsk...such strong emotions...On any forum it's wise not to take the word of anyone when they make claims...
I agree
but to verify what they have actually posted.
Ohhh you mean a math joke known ALL OVER THE WORLD with matematicians, and even som geeks that makes tshits who didnt understand it's point. Not to worry though, the rest of us do. So now go and get the tshirt toots.
That is the best judge, after all we can verify empirical evidence, the rest is all theoretical, nooo its all relative or as some would say, only in their head.
Yeah, like objective logic in a world based on subjective experince. Way to go girl, you really came of smart here!
-
Ohhh you mean a math joke known ALL OVER THE WORLD with matematicians, and even som geeks that makes tshits who didnt understand it's point. Not to worry though, the rest of us do.
Yes the rest of us do, unfortunately you posted something while googling to support your assertions which you got thru google in the first place... without even understanding the implications of what you yourself posted, well done I must say!
Yeah, like objective logic in a world based on subjective experince. Way to go girl, you really came of smart here!
For someone claiming to have a math degree your quote "Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective." is astoundingly hilarious...world based on subjective experience? Wtf? Or your perceptions being subjective...if this world was based on subjective experience you could never come to a conclusion about 'objective' things and no one would know what empirical evidence is, which unfortunately for you, we do. You shouldn't be worried about me coming off smart or not, save your own arse...it's really in need of it wink
-
Good job on missing the point completely you stupid ****! I have a bachelor in theoretical math, with main focus on logical algorithm's. Altso called AI. Abstract and creative thinking is not part you is it? Incredible for someone who want to argue about something like logic.
theoretical world = things work within the framwork of itelf, like something silly as large values and objective logic, this does not make it wrong. But it makes it theoretical, not real.
I can't even be arsed to tell you what the point of the joke was if you don't get it youself. But ofcourse, that would take brain to do so.
Good day fucktard
lol "fucktard"? "stupid ****"? Someone is losing their cool (i.e. you). It's never a good idea to lose your cool in an argument because then you'll just resort to emotional arguments and thus concede your point, in much the same way you just have. Allow me to explain.
I get your "joke"; but you didn't understand my question - which was for you to destabilize the fact that logic is indeed based on an objective study and prove that it is based on the subjective. By showing me that mathematics operates on the land of the theoretical does nothing to prove your point because logic is theoretical by definition since it bypasses all sensory perceptions (e.g. a blind man can do logic even if he does not know what a real 'thing' looks like). A defining part of logic is that it underlines the laws of the universe from a thought-based level and thus it utilizes objective proofs; so sitting there saying "but it's not t3h realz lolz!" isn't really making a point - it's stating the obvious. Logic does not operate based on our senses and that is precisely what makes it objective. However, just because it's theoretical does not mean it can't be applicable to the "real" world and there are enough examples to prove this. So please, go back to the drawing board and think of a proper argument instead of obfuscating the topic with jocular bullshit or trying to insult me by touting your bachelors degree in mathematics because trust me, no one here cares. Thanks for trying though, your joke did make me laugh - just not the way you had hoped for.
By the way, for someone who did a BACHELOR in mathematics, you sure don't know how to read/write. I guess with all those numbers you really forgot how to express yourself within any level of articulacy huh? Do you want me to translate the above paragraph to you in an easier form to aid your understanding or do you think you're fine with that level of Enlglish (it's pretty basic, but I wouldn't put anything past you)? Don't be afraid to ask - no one think you can get any more stupid anyway.
-
Ohhh you mean a math joke known ALL OVER THE WORLD with matematicians, and even som geeks that makes tshits who didnt understand it's point. Not to worry though, the rest of us do.
Yes the rest of us do, unfortunately you posted something while googling to support your assertions which you got thru google in the first place... without even understanding the implications of what you yourself posted, well done I must say!
No, I know "Cecil Adam's" on a personal level, and have been supporting their site for years. Come again!
Oh btw, you like to view people on what they do, and if you like their writing style, right?. Download this.
http//rapidshare.de/files/6818785/logikz.rar.htmlIt is a shader type program that use AI algorithms draw fractals in a tangent space realtime, use perplex array's and use AI for all tengent vectors. I even added music for your's sake. So if you dont understand what you look at, wich a highly doubt, then just enjoy the music.
For someone claiming to have a math degree your quote "Everything is perspectives, and nothing more. And they are all subjective." is astoundingly hilarious...world based on subjective experience? Wtf? Or your perceptions being subjective...if this world was based on subjective experience you could never come to a conclusion about 'objective' things and no one would know what empirical evidence is, which unfortunately for you, we do.
No we dont, we know observation of system's that often repeat. Often being the keyword. Oh yes you can come to conclutions...YOU can come to conclutions, and so can everybody else, and sometimes those will overlap. The more we understand math, the more we understand just how subjective an experience the world truely is. And with the arrival of more absract types of both math and thinking, we have started to make quantum leaps (litterally quantum actually).
You shouldn't be worried about me coming off smart or not, save your own arse...it's really in need of it wink
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.
-
lol "fucktard"? "stupid ****"? Someone is losing their cool (i.e. you). It's never a good idea to lose your cool in an argument because then you'll just resort to emotional arguments and thus concede your point, in much the same way you just have. Allow me to explain.
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.
whatever you'r point was, I'm not interrested hypocrite!
EDIT
By the way, for someone who did a BACHELOR in mathematics, you sure don't know how to read/writeyeah, 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...
-
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