/lit/ - Literature

>>15216171
Yes.

Yes, you say that P1 hold by P2 and P2 holds by P1 and you invent religion.

>>15216171
Not really. There are alternatives but they're just as flawed. Read the page on Munchhausen's trilemma. Logical arguments are fundamentally baseless

>>15216189
Why not just say that P1 holds by P1?

>>15216194
That's circular and therefore illogical.

>>15216194
Circular argument. Part of the Munchhausen trilemma. If you accept the validity of a circular argument you can prove everything including contradictions

>>15216171
say the simplest of propositions would show that which is in the world, not needing an explanation

>>15216190
>Logical arguments are fundamentally baseless
No one believes this

>>15216194
because nothing is self-defining unless it also defines all other sets.
all regressions only have meaning if you assume a first member of the set, because without that each succeeding member loses ground for itself. you end up either in nihilism or brute fact, the last of which is actually the same as assuming a first member of the set because with brute fact you still cut off the regression at the last member you cognized. nihilism isn't logical because you can see a member of the set, therefore there must be a set.

>>15216207
No one behaves like it is true because it's not practical. But Munchhausen's trilemma is pretty devastating even math relies on arbitrary axioms. Calling them self-evident just makes them circular.

>>15216202
if logical arguments are baseless then your argument is baseless, which is self-contradictory.
truth has to be assumed to make a claim

>>15216233
No it doesn't because language isn't spitting logical propositions at each other. This was the position of the positivists and it run's into insurmountable obstacles

>>15216233
>if logical arguments are baseless then your argument is baseless
That sentence is a logical argument too.
>which is self-contradictory
The law of noncontradiction is an unproven axiom itself.

Also, his argument being baseless doesn't necessarily mean it's false, that just means he can't doxastically show it to be true.

>>15216233
1. A circular argument, where at some point the theory and the alleged proof support each other, however indirectly.

2. An argument from regression, in which the proof relies on a more basic proof, which in turn relies on an even more basic one, and so on, in an infinite regress.

3. An axiomatic argument, where the proof stems from a (hopefully) small number of axioms or assumptions which, however, are not themselves subjected to proof.

>>15216239
uh no it wasn't lol
the only obstacle that it runs into is you not being able to run sophistry off as an argument

>>15216252
the law of noncontradiction is self-proven because to assume otherwise is to undermine logic in it's entirety.
if he can't show it to be true then it's not true.

>>15216267
It definitely was. Wittgenstein renounced the Tractatus and PI was one of the things that led to natural language philosophy and speech act theory

>>15216171
That argument could be made even more lethal by adding, "Why does P2 entail P1?". If you do that, all propositions basically branch into an infinite amount of statements that need proof.

>>15216281
>to assume otherwise is to undermine logic in it's entirety
And?
>if he can't show it to be true then it's not true.
Watch this: "Prove it."

>>15216281
Wanting logic to be true is not a valid reason for assuming the law of non-contradiction. All formal logics abide by it because it makes them trivial if you don't by the principle of explosion.
1. Start with some proven A AND NOT A
2. A OR (Whatever proposition you want)
3. NOT A
4. (Whatever proposition you want)
It would put philosophers and mathematicians out of a job

>>15216284
Positivists don't believe in metaphysics and think there must be a mathematical proof for knowledge to have a reasonable justification for believing in anything, and I'm saying just the opposite. I'm saying that there is a member of a set that is self-justifying by virtue of it's justifying all member of the set it's in.

OP wanted people to tell each other to diallete

>>15216281
>law of noncontradiction is self-proven because to assume otherwise is to undermine logic in it's entirety
Actually, there are logics that don't require it as an axiom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

>>15216304
Okay
assume a has an identity
a doesn't equal a
but if a doesn't equal a, I can't assume a to begin with
therefore, a must equal a

>>15216281
>if he can't show it to be true then it's not true.
And this is very wrong too see the incompleteness theorem

>>15216306
no it would put sophists and academics out of a job.
and I'm not "wanting" logic to be true, I'm giving you a standard transcendental argument for logic you can easily find in Kant

>>15216325
>but if a doesn't equal a, I can't assume a to begin with
Watch this: "Prove it." (Do you see the point I'm trying to make?)

>>15216171
The only way to "solve" it is to avoid it altogether by way of the axiomatic argument (dogmatism). Problems like this are why God exists.

>>15216310
You have to show the existence of a set to begin with. Like in the ZFC axioms there had to be the axiom of infinity. Again an arbitrary baseless axiom

>>15216340
dogmatism is cope so people don't kill themselves

>>15216349
Not if the dogmatism is based on Truth.

>>15216333
>and I'm not "wanting" logic to be true
>because to assume otherwise is to undermine logic in it's entirety

Logic in it's entirety is undermined. Or rather logic that want's something more "real" than an axiomatic basis. Mathematicians don't care that they are the ones that make up the axioms

>>15216336
I can see you're a fucking retard lol

>>15216368
That's not very nice.

>>15216366
the point is, whatever is "more real" than the set IS the terminating member of the set which justifies all members.

>>15216171
I'm a math brainlet, but I feel like modern topology could provide some interesting and non-obvious answers to this, albeit impractical. If these guys can invert spheres without tearing, they can probably come up with some graph that isn't a tree or an infinite chain of nodes.

>>15216377
or is the set of all sets. fuck bertrand russell.

>>15216368
His point is that there is no way to prove the fundamental axioms that underlie logic. It's literally impossible. The same is true of basically any other intellectual, social, or moral system. We can't prove a damn thing.

>>15216377
Again like I said above in set theory you have to prove that there is a set to begin with. Naive set theory falls victim to Russell's paradox or the set of all sets that do not include themselves. Modern set theory does not allow unrestricted creation of sets to avoid this

>>15216398
two things:
just because you can't "prove" a member of a set in the same way as all other members doesn't mean it doesn't have a proof
and
if one member is a necessity for all other members then you can most certainly prove the other members

>>15216424
You're ignoring
>>15216348
>>15216388
>>15216402
the naive set theory you're using has a proven contradiction in it and you seem to like the law of noncontradiction

>>15216402
Russell gay
first of all
if there is no set then there's nothing to prove
if there is one then you fall into fundamentally three camps
nihilism involving the set (set is an illusion, set doesn't exist, set has no meaning)
or brutalism, the set is a brute fact
or realism, a member of the set, or a set of sets, can be self-justifying.
everything else is noise

>>15216424
To even do set theory you have to start with axioms giving the existence of certain sets. Arbitrary axioms

>>15216458
What camp would the set of all sets that don't contain themselves fall into?

>>15216171
It is no problem, therefore it needs no solution.
If the regress could be shown to come to an end, then the 'mere assertion' would lose all its power. The search for a solution to this non-existent problem is THE fundamental virgin cope. The chad looks not with the mind, but with the eyes. Thou villainous virgin shackled by proofs; destroy that cage of quantity. The assertion is what gives chad his power. He acts because he acts, not because his action is logically entailed. He says YES in the face of a seemingly meaningless cosmos. He is the assertoric embodied. His valuation is true in each and every case, because he wills it so.
Yes
YES

>>15216424
If your proofs all rely on each other, i.e. if there is no independent rational proof for each and every single statement in the system, which also possesses its own independent rational proof going backwards in an infinite line, then you do not have a system that can be rigorously and deductively proven. What you have is an axiomatic system.

And that's the point of this thread.

>>15216458
And I shouldn't even be going to all this trouble self-justifying is a circular argument you were told that at the beginning. No one accepts circular arguments

>>15216449
how many times do I have to teach you this lesson old man?
naivety in logic is akin to brutalism, where you simply accept a fact as it is
realism, however, accepts all members of a set have a justification, but that one member must be a terminus of that regression in order for any set, proposition, etc to have meaning at all.

>>15216171
No, and this website has been enduring it for 17 years.

>>15216205
Naturally the best reply gets ignored.

Foundationalism. 1 = 1 because I hold up a finger and spontaneously perceive oneness, I snap one and spontaneously hear a oneness- and you do to, which is why we can seamlessly communicate through oneness. Our subjectivities have the same axioms, so even though we cannot justify them, we spontaneously act and communicate through them because we could not do otherwise. They are fundamental

>>15216483
Brutalism like the architecture? What regression? You have no clue what you're talking about

>>15216473
Your post is drenched in cringey memespeak but its fundamental assertion is the only true answer. Reminder: Hume's solution to the similar problem of induction was to just ignore it and live a good life.

>>15216171
Maybe. The fact remains that I exist, that I think, and that I perceive. Perception is perception of something, even if it isn't what I think it is--even a brain in a jar is perceiving something, just not what it thinks. And likewise, even if reality is what it seems, I still am not perceiving what I think I am.
These are the things that are true. You aren't going to get a grand metaphysics out of this, but at least you'll find life in here.

>>15216477
not really, the point of this is to show that a rigorous proof can even be possible, and I'm telling you that if you assume out of the gate that truth isn't true, then you don't have a claim

>>15216495
brutalism, or brute fact, whatever the fuck you want to call it
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/problem-of-many/#4

>>15216205
>>15216493
So basically the solution is "fuck proof"?

>>15216514
Again we're talking about a logical deduction. Empirical data is not part of a logical deduction. You can assume the existence of something real as an axiom because you want to follow out the consequences but that axiom is not justified logically.

>>15216529
The solution is to find an axiom both parties agree on

>>15216542
>The solution is to find an axiom both parties agree on
Why not take everything on faith if your whole worldview relies on it in the first place?

>>15216542
Arbitrary axioms. This is how math works

>>15216540
what I'm saying is that proof is a two way street.
If I say, for instance, that (a) is real because it moves everything that exists in a given world
and nothing that exists can move itself, except for a
then I've given a proof for a existing, at least theoretically

>>15216546
And that's kind of the point of Munchausen's trilemma and why everyone ignores it for practical reasons. It's named after the story of Baron Munchausen trying to pull himself out of a swamp by his own hair

>>15216546
Because you run the risk of having contradicting beliefs since they won't come from the same small sample of axioms

>>15216529
‘Fuck proof’ is the answer. The solution is still in development. All the great philosophers and messiahs all have the same simple messages because life isn’t that complicated, it’s selfishness that makes us complicate things and obfuscate truth for our own benefit. Nietzsche’s on Truth and lies in the nonmoral sense, Aristotle’s metaphysics, and the simple parables of all great religions lay out the problem pretty well

>>15216171

The regression itself is the solution so to speak
It's the classic dilemma of the chicken and the egg, how did the universe and all of existence as we know it start, etc...
The only satisfying conclusion one can come to is that humans only perceive things as having a beginning and end when this is not the case
The true nature of the world is that everything is just infinitely circulating and looping and always has been and always will be

>>15216558
Again this arbitrarily assuming the existence of something whether it be A or the world. You can't get around that

>>15216542
How do you derive beliefs from that axiom even if both parties do agree on it?
For example, let the axiom be P1 and a belief derived from it be P2.
How do you know that P2 truly follows from P1?
"With P3, of course."
Well, how do you know that?
Etc.

>>15216542
So truth is a matter of consensus?

>>15216563
Why does deriving beliefs from a small sample of axioms prevent contradiction?
Why is contradiction "wrong"?
As you can see, all beliefs sit on a million assumptions.

>>15216578
Math gets around this one with mechanical manipulation. Theoretically you could get all proofs down to a level of symbol manipulation on par with the difficulty of arithmetic at least to verify the steps of the proof. Whether you accept people can correctly do basic symbol manipulation is up to you but it's enough to satisfy mathematicians

>>15216581
Truth is eternal/ immanent, consensus ‘truth’ is a psychological tool to confront and navigate the eternal truth, and natural selection refined consensus truths which deviate from the eternal truth

>>15216569
no it doesn't though lol because if things in a given world are moving
and they can't move themselves
then something in that world must be moving them
now again, and you can see it in this thread, you either fall into brute fact, nihilism, or realism to the question.
"arbitrarily" assuming something would be if I just assumed a random member exists in a world that had no necessity nor served as a necessity

>>15216586
>Why does deriving beliefs from a small sample of axioms prevent contradiction?
It doesn't, it reduces the likelihood of it
>Why is contradiction "wrong"?
It implies you made a mistake in your choice of axiom/belief

>>15216581
Finding the initial set of axioms and logical rules is. After that it becomes math or logic and you can check whether someone's proof follows from the set of axioms using the rules of deduction.

>>15216586
because to assume anything is to assume meaning
every time you make a statement, you are assuming truth and meaning. If you say you're not, you're either undermining your own argument unknowingly or you're willfully speaking nonsense.

>>15216189
Why do P1 and P2 hold each other?

>>15216171
Yes. God.

>>15216593
How do you logically show there is a given world? And this is just you trying to use an apologetic argument where it's wildly ill suited.. The prime mover fails because if it can move by itself why can't the other things in the world? But this has nothing to do with Munchausen's trilemma

>>15216578
The logic system is an axiom you agree on

>>15216604
Logical extension from axioms is, of course, still nothing more than the axioms themselves. But if truth is nothing but consensus, that certainly debases math and logic.

>>15216631
Now you're getting it

>>15216602
>It doesn't, it reduces the likelihood of it
>It implies you made a mistake in your choice of axiom/belief
How do you know either of those things?
>>15216616
>because to assume anything is to assume meaning
How does that have anything to do with the post you replied to?

>>15216631
Logical extension from the axioms is all math is. What else would it be? What people that haven't really studied math don't understand is that the consequence of the axioms and rules of deduction are far from obvious. Extremely far from obvious

Infinite regress is retarded because you can justify anything with it.
"I am Bill Gates"->"Because if I wasn't Bill Gates, I wouldn't say I was Bill Gates"->"Because if I said I was Bill gates when I actually wasn't Bill Gates, that would be a contradiction."->"A contradiction because I am Bill Gatres"->"Because if I wasn't Bill Gates, I wouldn't say I was Bill Gates"->..... ad infinum
Have I convinced you I am Bill Gates yet?
>inb4 the propositions in the regress chain must be different
It's not hard to make all of them distinct. Still doesn't make believing a proposition whose only justification is an infinite regress chain less retarded.
The practical solution, of course, is noticing that in the real world arguments are not synthetic and rely largely on trust and social inferences. There is no argument that will convince everyone but you can convince a certain person if you try. And it will look almost nothing like formal logic, infinite regress chains or axiomatic method. It will be natural.

In mathematics though the only solution is a set of preagreed axioms that act as definitions of things that we talk about. All arguments come down to these axioms but that does't in any way mean that they're trivial and insignificant. A lot of complexity can come from a simple set of axioms! If you ever studied mathematics you understand how ridiculous it is to think that just because an argument is a formal consequence of a set of simple axioms that it itself is simple.
>Logical extension from axioms is, of course, still nothing more than the axioms themselves.
No. If it were nothing more than axioms itself, the Clay institute wouldn't offer you $1000000 for proving a theorem using those axioms. An argument is something bigger, more interesting than the axioms it relies on.

>>15216630
And?

>>15216626
uh actually it has everything to do with the trilemma which is how I know you're full of shit by even saying that
because if everything can be it's own prime mover then there is at least one prime mover
if there is no prime mover then nothing is moving
but if things ARE MOVING, then guess what?
there's at least one prime mover lol

>>15216640
>How do you know either of those things?
I don't know, I think them I guess?

>>15216645
Sure, but a less mystical version of this is, balancing Magic the Gathering is extremely far from obvious. The difference is, relatively few people make a religion out of CCGs.

>>15216663
I'm asking you for proof.

>>15216660
Now, can you prove any of those things you just said?

>>15216647
i don't know why you and so many people think consensus magically makes something true. Just accept that necessity exists in logic, it's really that simple.

>>15216666
Can't think of any, sorry

>>15216660
It has nothing to do with prime mover because to even have the argument you have to assume the existence of a set of something moving. That is your initial baseless assumption. Otherwise what things are you talking about? And as far as the actual prime mover argument goes it fails to prove God for the reason you said the specific prime mover is not needed if everything can move on it's own. But we are talking about Munchausen's trilemma not apologetics

>>15216667
see
>>15216325
I'm trying to demonstrate necessity here. I recommend Dr. Ed Feser if you want to know more about what I'm talking about.

>>15216670
Consensus does not make anything magically true. I did not say anything of the sort. Did you even read my post?

>>15216664
I wouldn't necessarily call math a religion and balancing is an aesthetic thing coming up with good decks given the current rules and allowed cards is the equivalent to math. As for why math is a big deal it's useful in science. Why is it useful? Who knows? Mathematicians and scientists and engineers and the people who use technology don't really care.

>>15216677
do you know what an argument is? if you make a proposition, you assume an element of that proposition in the statement. like in a syllogism you assume two premises. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand lol.

>>15216682
yeah you right, i misread your post
I agree with you btw

>>15216681
>see
>>>15216325
Oh, in that case, see: (>>15216336)
You still haven't responded to that with a proper rebuttal yet, just rude name-calling.

>>15216691
Because that is part of the Munchausen trilemma
1. A circular argument, where at some point the theory and the alleged proof support each other, however indirectly.

2. An argument from regression, in which the proof relies on a more basic proof, which in turn relies on an even more basic one, and so on, in an infinite regress.

3. An axiomatic argument, where the proof stems from a (hopefully) small number of axioms or assumptions which, however, are not themselves subjected to proof.

See the third choice. Assuming an axiom is baseless and not subject to proof

>>15216698
I know a lot of people like yourselves get flustered when you're challenged on the internet, but guess what?
saying "prove it" to an argument isn't an argument so I've got nothing to rebut

>>15216719
>saying "prove it" to an argument isn't an argument
Prove it.

>>15216700
"assuming an axiom is baseless"
you just made an argument
that argument is universally stated
it is a truth claim
you assume truth in your statement, then go on to say that truth has no basis in the statement.
Incoherent sophistry check?

>>15216732
Assumptions aren't arguments, cumdrinker.

>>15216719
>NOOOO YOU CAN'T QUESTION MY REASONING NOOOOOOOO

>>15216731
are you a female by any chance?

>>15216736
you don't even know what a basic argument is, fortune cookie brain

>>15216746
I'm polygendered.

>>15216732
To even judge the truth of a logical proposition you must have some axioms to reason from. When I say I'm being logical I mean it follows from I think are reasonable axioms. But those axioms have no basis. And neither do yours. In fact since you seem to think yours are self-justifying and circular I would call that quite a bit less logical than mine

>>15216758
please tell me you're joking
>>15216764
>To even judge the truth of a logical proposition you must have some axioms to reason from
that's literally my entire argument oh my god

>>15216755
Nice projection, dumbass.

>>15216774
>please tell me you're joking
Yes, I'm actually bigendered.

>>15216774
If this is your argument why are you saying that logic deductions have a solid basis. I explicitly said that my axioms have no basis shit by definition axioms are not derived from anything else. Me considering them reasonable is just my opinion. There are multiple different systems of axioms studied in mathematics with no one being particularly bothered you pick whatever axioms interest you.

>>15216618
Its a mystery, sort of like the trinity. Silly of you to expect an answer :>

>>15216789
>you pick whatever axioms interest you
no wonder you can't figure out what your own fucking gender is

>>15216789
Even with axioms as basis for your reasoning I think a person can still ask to justify the steps where you obviously apply the axioms or combine one with the other. Even if you explicitly state the rules of logical deduction a person may still ask ad infinum why you can apply the rule there. Why you can substitute the variable. Why, why, why. I think this just goes to show that a lot of actual reasoning is nonverbal. You either get it or you don't. Do you agree?

>>15216801
Different anon but again by definition an axiom isn't derived from anything else remember

>3. An axiomatic argument, where the proof stems from a (hopefully) small number of axioms or assumptions which, however, are not themselves subjected to proof.

You can not prove an axiom otherwise you would not call it an axiom. If you want some historical math context on this look up the parallel line axiom in Euclidean geometry. For millennia people thought that it could be a theorem that followed from the other four Euclidean axioms but it was eventually proved that it had to be assumed as an axiom. In fact assuming different and contradictory versions of the parallel postulate yielded spherical and hyperbolic geometry

>>15216801
>no wonder you can't figure out what your own fucking gender is
I was making fun of you when I said that. Why don't you actually try to refute my argument from earlier rather than act like a 15 year old?

>>15216804
I agree and addressed that here >>15216590 but at some level we practically have to ignore this just like the trilemma. This is the same as asking someone how they're absolutely sure they've followed the steps correctly. Wittgenstein has an argument where we can't even be absolutely sure that we know what the definitions of the words we are using are. People just ignore this type of radical skepticism to get things done

>>15216171
A solution to what problem? You can keep questioning everything, even if it's scientifically provable. If two people are stubborn, they may never come to agreement. I'm not sure what value this discussion holds.

1+1=2.
Why? I think 1+1 is %.
Red is red.
Why? I think red is tree.

We assume meaning to what we say, how else can we communicate? It's like speaking to a kid.
What's that? A tree. Why? Because that's how we call it. Why do you call it like that? Because that's what people agreed to in the past. Why? Because at a certain moment there was agreement on the vocal sound of the word that describes what we now call 'tree'. Why? ...

damn. this is a gay ass thread.

>>15217675
t. retard

>>15218056
Why are you calling yourself a retard? Do you have anything to add or critique about anon's post?

>>15217675
The whole point is that this makes truth impossible to know if you require proof. Although I guess whether or not you care about that is entirely up to you.

>>15216171
Axioms my nigga

>>15216171
it eez what it eez

No, the only logical response is to recognize that everything we know is ultimately based on intuitions that are programmed into our mind from birth through the structure of our brains, and we have no choice but to accept them as true, for to do otherwise would be to undermine the only real basis of "knowledge" we have.

>>15217718
Prove it.

>>15220340

>>15220401

B.E yourself