where does logic come from?

File: 9 KB, 250x167, chalkboard logic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:15:07 2017 No.10447163 [Reply] [Original]

where does logic come from?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:17:29 2017 No.10447172 >>10447163 Logicistan I guess

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:19:32 2017 No.10447182 Greeks figured out that the world is shit, people are stupid and nothing makes sense, so some of them went to the beach thinken bout life and stuff and created abstract stuff like logic and geometry to pretend things actually make sense.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:25:02 2017 No.10447208 Read Euclid

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:25:38 2017 No.10447211 Euclid, book III prop 9 for that little piece of logic, OP. Anything else?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 19:14:23 2017 No.10447651 >>10447163 the concept of consistency and proportion

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:25:46 2017 No.10447881 >>10447163 Fucking to much poipussi greeks had sore dicks in the meantime they created logic

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:30:30 2017 No.10447903

>>10447163

It's formalized intuition. Basically the only thing logic has over other languages is that it's harder to engage in sophistry using logic with another person who groks logic. Of course, if someone doesn't understand formal logic, you can just write whatever the hell you want and claim you've proven your point. People who formalize every argument are generally trying to browbeat you, it makes just as much sense to say everything in Latin and claim that proves something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:31:41 2017 No.10447909 >>10447163 Codification of types of inferences that increase probability of survival.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:45:36 2017 No.10447964 a = b, b = c <=> a = b = c => a = c

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:46:37 2017 No.10447967 >>10447163 God

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:47:40 2017 No.10447970 >>10447903 I agree it's formalized intuition, but I am not sure I agree with the rest

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:53:54 2017 No.10447996

>>10447964
But it's not that simple. For instance, how do we know that a = c after the third line. Just because they both equal b doesn't mean they naturally equal each other. You must first prove that if a were less than b, b's magnitude would be greater than a's in relation to c, and that a's would be less. This is why Euclid needs to prove V. 8 before he proves prop V. 9.

You would think it is that simple, but it is not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:57:09 2017 No.10448005 >>10447909 literature recommendations on this idea?

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 20:59:35 2017 No.10448013

>>10447903
>>10447970
Okay, but why are the intuitions what they are?
>>10448005
I know Nietzsche suggests this early on in Human All Too Human. Authors dealing with evolutionary approaches to the mind probably discuss it too. Maybe Dennett, but I can't say for sure.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 21:09:47 2017 No.10448044 >its a philosophers start skirting math but for some reason dont want to actually bring math into the conversation despite math and philosophy being forever intertwined

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 21:33:21 2017 No.10448121 Autistic people

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 21:38:00 2017 No.10448133 >>10447903 It's more than that. You can't even deny that a=a without assuming it, as Aristotle noted.

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 21:41:21 2017 No.10448143

>>10447964
>>10447996
a = basketball
b = an orange/grapefruit
c= a soccer ball

a = b = c

a = c
1. quality = roundness

2. quality = size

3. quality = color (the soccer ball is orange)

In the quality of shape, a = b = c.

In the quality of 'type of thing' a, b and c are not equal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 21:43:01 2017 No.10448148 >>10447996 You're retarded

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 21:45:23 2017 No.10448154 We don't know. Theists would probably say it's transcendent. Logic is based on axioms. Axioms are assumed. We haven't proven our assumptions true.

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 22:21:07 2017 No.10448268
File: 83 KB, 576x720, terrence_howard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>"Since I was a child of three or four," he says, "I was always wondering, you know, why does a bubble take the shape of a ball? Why not a triangle or a square? I figured it out. If Pythagoras was here to see it, he would lose his mind. Einstein, too! Tesla!"
>"This is the last century that our children will ever have been taught that one times one is one," he says. "They won't have to grow up in ignorance. Twenty years from now, they'll know that one times one equals two. We're about to show a new truth. The true universal math. And the proof is in these pieces. I have created the pieces that make up the motion of the universe. We work on them about 17 hours a day. She cuts and puts on the crystals. I do the main work of soldering them together. They tell the truth from within."

>After high school, he attended Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, studying chemical engineering, until he got into an argument with a professor about what one times one equals. "How can it equal one?" he said. "If one times one equals one that means that two is of no value because one times itself has no effect. One times one equals two because the square root of four is two, so what's the square root of two? Should be one, but we're told it's two, and that cannot be." This did not go over well, he says, and he soon left school. "I mean, you can't conform when you know innately that something is wrong."

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/terrence-howards-dangerous-mind-20150914

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 22:24:20 2017 No.10448282 >>10447163 good luck asking these fags I bet most of them struggled at geometry

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 22:32:06 2017 No.10448303 >>10448268 if lit dropped an sd in intelligence, turned into a nigger, and got a huge ego boost, they;d be this guy

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 22:41:10 2017 No.10448333 >>10447163 >when you equate things they‘re equal woah so this is the power of logic

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 22:48:26 2017 No.10448353 what is logic actually good for I mean in applied use no simplistic bullshit like this is how I find my car keys

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 22:50:11 2017 No.10448362 File: 64 KB, 996x682, 5fc38007c506b5f8251fa78aa1301a026ab40073150d69a9674695cfd7fe4855.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10448268 What the fuck

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 23:27:00 2017 No.10448465

>>10448143
>>10448148
The point is, even if the conclusion is obvious, you must lead the person there from the foundation of relations of things. This is how mathematical logic usually operates, through determining how things look when something is greater or less, THEN determining that an absence of either of these properties (or really a single state of two things have a greater than/less than property towards each other) determines that they must be equal.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 23:31:37 2017 No.10448476 >>10448353 literally everything invented since the 1930s, including medecine dosages, message cryptography, efficient sub/bus stops literally EVERYTHING you humanities major

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 23:47:43 2017 No.10448516 >>10448476 >>10448353 https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/03/aristotle-computer/518697/

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 00:03:22 2017 No.10448561

>>10447909
t. fagtard that doesn't know shit about logic, theoretical computer science, or analytic philosophy.

>>10448005
None. Very few academics who are informed on this subject would believe logic emerges as the result of evolutionary beneficial patterns of inference. There are numerous region to reject this position, and even any biological or psychological reasons in general. Logic is much more fundamental than that, and seems to be present on even the most basic physical and mathematical levels (. . . and computation is what links these two).

Moreover, there is no reason to go to such an abstract level as evolutionary psychology. A psychologistic or biologically oriented account of logic would probably look like theories of "mental grammar" and "universal grammar" in the field of generative grammar.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 00:32:42 2017 No.10448642

>>10448561
>t. fagtard that doesn't know shit about logic, theoretical computer science, or analytic philosophy.
Humility is a virtue, friend.

Your reasons for rejecting logic as a codification of types of inferences that increase probability of survival are:
1. Logic seems to be present at the most basic physical level.
2. There's no reason to be as abstract as evolutionary psychology.

You simply assert claim 2 and then speculate about what it would entail for generative grammar. This is bizarre since since evolutionary psychology is less abstract than mathematics, which you rightly hold in high esteem, and since your speculative conclusions are possible outcomes (at best), not necessary outcomes. It isn't clear how this is supposed to be a criticism of the idea that logic is a codification of types of inferences that increase probability of survival.

You're going to need to explain what you mean in 1. In what sense is logic "present" in physics. I agree that it is present in some sense, but not in any sense that I could understand to be undermining my position.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 00:48:04 2017 No.10448675 File: 358 KB, 1600x1293, xiaodong004.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10447163 Abstraction.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 02:43:38 2017 No.10448929 >>10447163 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html Everybody go home.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 03:33:25 2017 No.10449018 >>10447903 >intuition dude what...? logic is almost always totally contrary to our primitive intuitions.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 04:07:22 2017 No.10449074 >>10448642 i am here for this

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 04:49:23 2017 No.10449156
File: 7 KB, 231x218, pepe sweating.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10447163
This has been bugging me. Since there are many logics, how do we know the one we use is the "right" one? It can't be proved empirically, since we're unable to interpret empirical evidence without some sort of logic and logic is what we use to determine which empirical evidence is valid in the first place, e.g. if we think we see something that prior experience + logic tells us is impossible, we conclude that our perception is mistaken, and the only way to "disprove" a logic is on its own terms. Should we really just go with whatever logic is most intuitive? What if the universe doesn't fit our intuitions? Are we just fundamentally fucked then?

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 04:49:42 2017 No.10449158

>where does the concept of a thing being more voluminous than another come from
Logic doesn't fucking come from anything, it's self-evident.
>Is the thing we call sound real
>How can we see the difference between a square and a circle
>If I have one, and another one; do I have three?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 04:51:02 2017 No.10449166 >>10449158 This. OP is in dire need to discover what the fuck an axiom is

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 04:57:42 2017 No.10449187

>>10449156
>there are many logics
You'll have to elaborate on this

It's true that it's impossible to fully justify reason itself since we can only do that through reason, and ironically reason also tells us we can't prove a system to be correct by using itself
I dont know why we have so much faith in logic but you have to fall back onto something, and at least logic is fairly consistent in most cases

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:00:16 2017 No.10449195

>>10449166
Logic = asymmetry, or, symmetry, between axioms.
Logic is like time, height, weight, colors, pressure, pain, death. They are cause they aren't something else. Something is only high cause something else isn't as high.

It is, to see, what isn't.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:08:46 2017 No.10449213

>>10449195
This too.
Also:
Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man’s knowledge (of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought) consists of axiomatic concepts. An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:19:22 2017 No.10449230 Are you guys actually denying this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:24:15 2017 No.10449239 >>10447163 A 30% cohort of white men.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:35:15 2017 No.10449251

>>10447163
the structure of human nervous systems and subjective consciousness. it wouldn’t work the same if there was a different form of cognition, which would construct different techne, abstract and physical. anyone who denies this can only appeal to their own logical devices and neurology. very sad thing to rely on

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:36:13 2017 No.10449252 >>10447163 quantity of neurons. which makes abstract thought possible

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:44:41 2017 No.10449259 >>10449252 >>10449251 reddit

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:47:31 2017 No.10449264 >>10449259 >>10449252 me explain

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:52:14 2017 No.10449273

>>10449259
he’s been vanquished as easily as that, has nothing left. will whine about axioms and “self-evident” truths for hours and then call you anti-science

you chop off your hands, honestly. i couldn’t imagine believing any of the gay shit analytical niggers and mathematicians tell themselves

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:55:04 2017 No.10449277 >>10449264 it's the most basic retarded answer masked with basic scientific knowledge >hurr logic comes from teh brain xD

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:57:18 2017 No.10449280 >>10449277 the question was "where does logic come from?". please explain where else logic would come from.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 05:58:49 2017 No.10449285 >>10449280 I don't know, but you don't seem to understand the distinction between "come from" and "allowed by"

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 06:04:11 2017 No.10449293 >>10449285 >>10449280 me if the question was intended to ask why we have logic the obvious answer would be to say that it is optimal for survival. this isn't a difficult question, am i missing something?

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 06:52:09 2017 No.10449362

>>10449187
>>there are many logics
>You'll have to elaborate on this
Depending on what axioms you accept. e.g. there are people who do mathematics without the Law of Excluded Middle, which is a fundamental part of classical logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_(mathematics)
But should we use the axiom of excluded middle in real life? It seems to work, but is that enough? Can quantum bullshit disprove it?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 06:56:46 2017 No.10449368 If A was a bone and B was a pork chop then C was a pig the logic wouldn't be true because a pork chop isn't a fucking bone.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 07:04:06 2017 No.10449377 >people actually think logic is a human construct does not everything in the universe follow the same laws independent of human consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 07:07:19 2017 No.10449384 >>10449377 I don't know, does it?

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 07:45:13 2017 No.10449435

>>10449293
Do you want me to tell you why this is wrong or why this is reddit
I'll answer the latter: you're answering on a completely different level to what the question is asking

I bet your answer to the trolley dilemma goes something along the lines of "find the emergency derailing lever" doesn't it?
Also nobody fucking cares which posts are yours, lurk before posting next time and embarrassing yourself

>>10449362
This seems to be a different way of applying logic, but a proof by the absurd uses the same logic as the arguments explaining why you can't use it
That's to say that no matter what techniques you use in a mathematical demonstration, you'll always use logic/reason (which can be applied in different ways hence your article) but you'll never use your physical senses for example

>>10449377
If you're a platonic realist then yes
Personally I think it makes the most sense

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 07:47:45 2017 No.10449442 >>10449435 >I'll answer the latter yep

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 09:53:58 2017 No.10449671 File: 188 KB, 344x438, brain melted.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10449368

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 13:33:49 2017 No.10450342 >>10449368 >food analogies

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 13:55:54 2017 No.10450427 >>10449251 This.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 14:05:02 2017 No.10450456 >>10450342 if A was a solid turd, and B was Diarrhea, and C was a green mixture: the logic in OP would be correct, if seeking the commonality of shit: but in that context and example, A would not be equal to B and C on multiple accounts of qualities

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 14:06:04 2017 No.10450461 Logic is about similarities and differences and possible relations and interactions between themselves and each other

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 14:14:27 2017 No.10450493 >>10450456 >let me pretend that applying a rule in impertinent cases somehow disproves its efficacy Better be baiting

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 14:18:50 2017 No.10450510 >>10449018 What? Are you stupid?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 14:31:45 2017 No.10450563 >>10450493 >reading comprehension Better be bad at logic

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 14:39:57 2017 No.10450599 >>10450456 Which is why we define how equals operates. It is a relation that puts two entities in a NOT unequal relation to each other. In reality, it seems equality is proven through a reduction as absurdum of inequality

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 14:40:59 2017 No.10450608 >>10450599 Reductio ad absurdum Trust me, spellcheck can go fuck itself for not knowing latin

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 15:09:35 2017 No.10450714 >>10448154 >Theists would probably say it's transcendent Who says this?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 15:22:45 2017 No.10450751 >>10447163 >70 posts >nobody answered the simple question op asked. >the absolute state of lit reading comprehension Logic comes from ontology, anon. /pol/ out

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 15:24:23 2017 No.10450761 >>10450563 >I don't know what I'm talking about so I'll just say he has no reading comprehension Definitely baiting

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 15:31:46 2017 No.10450789

>>10450751
Exactly. We know you are from /pol/ because you can’t answer a simple question.

There are many kinds of logic, defined all over the place. What kind was OP referring to. If it was the logic of A equaling C that introduces the principle of non-contradiction in a prior proof regarding inequality.

That is an extremely specific answer though, if you want to get broader, logic is developed from reason, and reasoning is something both the mind and soul does, so ontology may partially be correct, but is not exactly specific

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 16:01:57 2017 No.10450898 >>10448268 This is unbelievable, human satire.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 16:08:12 2017 No.10450916 >>10447163 its the rules of contingency, beyond that i'm stumped.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 17:19:51 2017 No.10451158

>>10450461
logic is the result of cataloguing all possible things and possibilities, similarities and differences, relationships, cause and effect, composite-more-than-sum-of-parts-effects. The natural, the self evident system of classification, what follows from the other.

However I noted sum-of-parts-composite, which is interesting, because this is where maybe 'quantum' stuff gets in, or this is moving this way being forced by that and that is moving this way being forced by this which at that same time was being forced by another which that one was being forced by another and all of them being forced one way or another by multiple things being forced one way or another by multiple things all at the same time and what exactly caused what. And I dont know much about fuzzy logic.

But imagine something like a finger puppet shadow on the wall, or like ink blot tests, but to use the first example, the actual thing is one way, but because of certain aspects of reality, light, shadow, the distance and time, and how it shows on wall, etc. a phenomenon feature is detected in relation to the object finger puppet hand:

And people familiar with hands and everything or not, may not be able to tell much about the object from the appearance of hardly some of its
characteristics.

logic is the spirit of order. Of understanding, the meaning of sense, making sense, understanding, agreement, that 'making sense' is what threw me off on the tangent of thinking about senses disconnect, and how something classically phenomenological could appear causal logical but really there is some 'shadow' delay tricks due to the nature of force carriers, and such on and such on.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 17:20:59 2017 No.10451163 >>10447967 tenth post best post

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 17:26:15 2017 No.10451179

>>10447967

Bingo

>>10447903

stupid post

>>10447964

possibly: an imprinting of the world's ordering using the ink of death. If that's not divine poetry I don't know what is: the crystallized deaths of our ancestors equips us with the linguistic abilities necessary to contemplate our own life in the face of death.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 17:59:08 2017 No.10451287 >>10451179 Stupid post

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:07:11 2017 No.10451330 >>10451287 Your impression of logic: a mystifying array of symbols capable of leveraging argument by indicating authority. That's fucking retarded brah, sorry. Don't be buttmad you wrote a stupid post.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:09:49 2017 No.10451337 guys this >>10448143 is fucking me up, someone help. Im now confused. This should prove that a = b is not necessarily true, right? one cannot simply make the statement a = b? yeah?

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:13:26 2017 No.10451351

>>10451158
>Of understanding, the meaning of sense, making sense, understanding, agreement, that 'making sense' is what threw me off on the tangent of thinking about senses disconnect, and how
the fact of imprint, senses, light off atoms of the world into eyes, cones, optic nerve, electric singles, passing through multiple mechanisms, wires, chambers, encoded and presented in different ways, and the same for smell, and sound, and touch and taste.

The exact impression experienced by the experiencer, the exact 'seeing of tree', or flower, or rabit, or pond, or grass, or building, exactly the image that is experienced by the experiencer, is all that is given: logic and connecting all these imagies together, and relations,

but is there a logical relation in the smell, and taste, and sight, of different herbs and foods and spices and candles? what is the meaning of logic there, where is the ultimate sense, of meaning of classification, if a red candle made of herb A tastes like salt and smells like pine trees: Is there any 'sense' between those characteristics? Is there any classification?

Is it under: Things that can have multiple characteristics that dont really have a logically coherent following relation of exact necessary purpose and meaning.

Is there a logical reason strawberries look as they do and taste as they do, and do not taste like banananas and bananas not like them?

Could a strawberry be made to taste like banana, and what then, and then what?

logic is about why mechanisms work, what follows, if A exists as 1, 2, 3,, and B exists as 4,5,6 when B interacts with A like this: QTRF, then EUBG will happen because 1, 2, and 3 are like this: 437436.

And 4, 5, 6 are like this YG4HD

And when 437436 interacts with YG4HD; EUBG happens. Because there is an axiomatically proven eternal universal proclamation of undeniable perfectly partitioned true fundamental organization of perfect a priori order even points and lines incrementally expanding in repetition

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:20:11 2017 No.10451380 >>10451337 usually I guess it is assumed it is numbers: but even then: If A = 4 B = 8/2 C= (2)(2)

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:21:04 2017 No.10451384 >>10451337 How does it confuse you? You can make the statement a=b whenever .

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:22:20 2017 No.10451390

>>10451337
just need specification I guess: a = b = c is a 'mould' or blueprint, or form or function that imputs can be entered into: so when inputs are clarified you can use the equation as a balance, as a measuring device, to see if what you are trying to say with the thing you are plugging in, if they are equal and true.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:27:17 2017 No.10451413

>>10451337

The meaning of "=" in a logical setting is not the same as the meaning of "=" in an arithmetic setting.

We usually take "=" or, better yet "≡" (since it distinguishes from the arithmetic equals) to mean "If and only if."

It doesn't make much sense to say "An object if an only if another object." We usually think of a and b as referring to events/logical facts.

So "(a ≡b) and (b≡c)" might refer to "(A man is a philosopher if and only if he studies philosophy) and (a man studies philosophy if and only if he is a student of philosophy)"

Altogether then, the transitive property of ≡ would give us

"A man who is a philosopher is a student of philosophy."

Perhaps not the best example but I think the structure is clear.

THEREFORE:

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:28:58 2017 No.10451424 >>10451413 if a is equal to b: then b IS a, and what about a makes it b at all? Why is b quality, clarification, title, necessary?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:42:03 2017 No.10451486 >>10451384 but what if a =/= b like this guys example. A basketball does not equal a grapefruit or what about >>10451380 a= b b=c a=c but then what if I say a =3 b=5 c=7 Something is awry

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:43:22 2017 No.10451495

>>10451424

There are two matters at hand:

1. The arithmetic principle that a=b and b=c implies a=c (this is called the "transitive property of equality" in mathematics).

2. The logic principle that "if and only if" is transitive. that is, "a if and only if b" and "b if and only if c" implies "a if and only if c." This is called "Logical equivalence." It is not the same thing as saying, "A and B are the same object."

I think you're confusing the transitive property of ≡ with rules about naming.

Let us say there is a thing (it doesn't matter what). We shall call this thing "A". We might also refer to it as "B" occasionally. In this example, (and NOT in the above examples) we may say "A is B."

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:48:40 2017 No.10451522 >>10451495 this is why going to uni and freely available education or widely available higher edu is extremely damaging and also why literati and intelligentsia probably need to be purged

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:49:34 2017 No.10451523 >>10451522 What is your problem exactly?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:51:19 2017 No.10451533 >>10451486 Ive found a way to answer my own question. It's not a correct statement, which isnt the goal in the first place. It's a logical statement.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:53:14 2017 No.10451540

>>10451523
note the space, a reflexive attempt to distance oneself from one’s own flow of creation. very feminine, as if im being invited into the vacuum that they allow to then collapse on me like a carnivorous plant or some burrowing arhropod’s tunnel trap. fascinating

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 18:54:44 2017 No.10451549 >>10451540 It's just a typing habit. I think you need to relax. Hang out a little. Dry out. We'll pick up where we left off tomorrow, you're getting cranky and impatient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:02:46 2017 No.10451590 lets say: A = 4 and... A = B Thus, B has to be 4. Now, lets say B = C since we know B = 4, C also has to equal 4 to be equal to B. Finally, this means, if A = 4, A = B, B = C, then A has to equal C, since both equal 4.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:04:58 2017 No.10451603

>>10451590
but we can say that B equals anything. Thats the whole purpose of distinguishing A from B and C.
you cant say A=B and a and b are both 4. because you arent even saying A= B at that point, youre just saying '4'. the whole point is that you can substitute.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:15:28 2017 No.10451644 >>10447182 Should all kind of thinking not link back to some kind of origin? - I would propose that man is only a recreative form of thought and therefore, we are always influenced by the "origin" whatever that might be.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:24:13 2017 No.10451678 >>10447163 God

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:28:58 2017 No.10451706 >>10451330 You either can't read or you're being deliberately dense

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:35:26 2017 No.10451731 >>10449435 ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha jesus mary and joseph hahahahahahahahahaha i pray unto thee, oh lord god, ruler of heavens and creator of the earth, please 5-D print more of these creatures oh my word hahahahahahahahahHa

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 19:39:54 2017 No.10451749 Logic is the grossest tool of patriarchal oppression in the history of your eurocentric history so it comes from insecure men in antiquity trying to silence THE REST OF US read a book you privldgd basement fucks

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 20:43:13 2017 No.10452039 >>10451549 I am the person you originally responded to and just saw your response now, and I was not the one typing those last two replies to you, but will read and respond to your post sometime

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 21:38:44 2017 No.10452251

Depends on two things - if logic is finnitely recursive or if human mind is finitely recursive, means its finite set of instructions? If logic is coming from mind, and mind is recursive as machines we could make computers make mathematical/logical laws instead of us. Its a pretty big problem in analytical philosophy

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 21:40:54 2017 No.10452265

>>10451495
>Let us say there is a thing (it doesn't matter what). We shall call this thing "A". We might also refer to it as "B" occasionally. In

What is an example of a reason why you would call A, B? For all examples, would A (object) be the same object as B? Lets say a particular brand of tennis racket. You pick up 2 off the shelf and say A = A, they are identical. Then you pick up the same two again and say: the first one is A and the second one is B, A = B.

I was asking a more meta wondering of what is an example of the need to label an identical thing as another symbol, instead of just saying "xyz brand racket = xyz brand racket", or A=A.

Because the (b), implies a difference, if there was no difference there would be need to add the b name, simply A is A and we are only dealing with A's, but, there are two A's, and they are separate objects quite obviously, so call one A and one B.

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 21:56:48 2017 No.10452341

>>10452265

>if there was no difference there would be no need to add the b name

"George Washington" and "America's first president" both denote the same thing, but either of the two terms might be preferable in different contexts.

"A is A" is called "The Law of Identity."

I would encourage you not to get too hung up on things like naming. When I began learning logic/math I would overthink things constantly and I couldn't proceed past the basics because I had hangups.

A big reason this happens is that, when you study math/logic, you are often spending more time learning a system of common symbols and conventions than actual ideas.

Before you can work in ideas, you have to learn how to express your ideas precisely and in a way that others can readily understand. You have to also be able to understand existing work.

protip: There are no obvious errors or oversights in logic as we have it today. It is an extremely well-studied area and you need to trust the existing conventions and avoid fighting them.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 22:06:12 2017 No.10452380 >>10448561 >people who do logic all day think they see it everywhere hmm

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 22:07:47 2017 No.10452386 >>10449156 you’re ready for the theory of ideology

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 22:08:49 2017 No.10452392 >>10449195 >2017 >>determining being as presence

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 22:11:02 2017 No.10452399 >>10449377 >formalized representation of probabilistic interpretation of physical phenomena = universal logicity

Anonymous Tue Dec 26 22:33:33 2017 No.10452498

>>10451603
LISTEN DOE

Remember what I was saying about proving the inequality first, then the absence of inequality is equality. THIS is why. Because in order to define the two numbers as logically being the same (even though given different letters) one must solve that they are truly unequal.

Thank you for being so obstinately difficult with regards to proving a actually equals b so I could prove my point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 22:37:15 2017 No.10452515 >>10452498 One must solve that they are truly NOT unequal rather... my bad

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 22:57:40 2017 No.10452612 File: 5 KB, 227x250, 1498433737165s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10449156 you're not going to make it

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 26 23:00:21 2017 No.10452630 >>10452498 wrong the absence of inequality is status quo state there is three possible states, maybe more

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 00:00:57 2017 No.10452907 Islamic Scholars

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 00:15:09 2017 No.10452952 >>10452630 There can be only inequality or equality when it comes to numbers there is no other state!

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 00:47:54 2017 No.10453047

>>10449377
There is no reason that some system of logic that we cannot comprehend, can't exist. We're not some pure all-seeing actors, we're animals. There is quite a bit of difference between how we perceive reality and reality itself. Our reality is subject to cognition, it's not the true reality.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 01:00:04 2017 No.10453081 >>10447163 Spatial reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 02:43:34 2017 No.10453430 >>10447163 Its penis. That's why women can't cum.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 08:17:38 2017 No.10454110 Does Hume argue that it comes from empirical experiences?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 08:21:47 2017 No.10454123 >>10454110 throwing another twig on the fire huh

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 10:23:48 2017 No.10454437

Imagine you drew a few yards long by few yards long rectangle in the sand.

And then you made even vertical lines evenly spaced apart crossing the span of the box.

Then you used some symbol to label each vertical line: a, b, c, d... or 1, 2, 3, 4,...

Imagine cavemen pre complex language standing around the beach doing this: trying to understand one another and their view of themselves and the world.

Of how even my using these describing words can grasp the meaning I am even trying to get about with even the idea of labeling something, labeling lines, how even space lines could have any meaning or significance:

and then maybe other marks can be made on the lines. What could even this represent and be for and mean though, what could this description of rectangle with lines, marked different ways and labeled, be used for, what am I trying to even express? The awareness of similarities and differences?

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 10:44:08 2017 No.10454530 [DELETED]

>>10453047
>>10451158
>logic is the spirit of order. Of understanding, the meaning of sense, making sense, understanding, agreement

What about 'random' functions, can illogical equations be made and produce outputs? Unpredictable? But all worthless? Always errors surmount? All chaos and noise? No complexity, or layers or levels, build up, structure, complexity, balance, evolution, complexion? Logic as cause and effect: given X, and known conditions 1,2,3; X in relation will produce a,b,c because____

Illogical would be: X interacting with 1,2,3 is always supposed to produce x,y,z because that is the apparent tried and true cause and effect:

So everything is about: the case that is, and may be: logic, understanding cause and effect relationships between objects, ideas, feelings: illogical is when something does not follow from the other: And we want to know where we are going, where we are heading and why, and why we want to or should want to head there: and we know the steps, the inputs that take us there: illogical is not being aware or wanting to be aware of the relationships between cause and effect between objects, ideas, feelings, people, places, things:

The state of reality: appears to be, one of stuff: and cause and effect stuff has on itself and all else:

That is said to be the logic of the universe, biologic for instance: is the chains of cause and effect related to the different types of substances referred to as 'biological substances', at least containing carbon (or some other more precise stipulations).

To narrow down understand, to organize the perception and comprehension of the inherent organization that is that which exists exactly as it does, and what is produced by its interactions and possible interactions with all else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 10:55:48 2017 No.10454583 Logic is also dealing with commands, and precise opposites: Stop, Go (would quantum be: (yellow), Slow). Yes, No. On, Off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 10:59:27 2017 No.10454595 >>10454437 >generalizations and categories are not a mistake

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 10:59:40 2017 No.10454596

>>10453047
>>10451158 (You)
>logic is the spirit of order. Of understanding, the meaning of sense, making sense, understanding, agreement

What about 'random' functions, can illogical equations be made and produce outputs? Unpredictable? But all worthless? Always errors surmount? All chaos and noise? No complexity, or layers or levels, build up, structure, complexity, balance, evolution, complexion? Logic as cause and effect: given X, and known conditions 1,2,3; X in relation will produce a,b,c because____

Illogical would be: X interacting with 1,2,3 is always supposed to produce x,y,z because that is the apparent tried and true cause and effect: And either thinking you have X (and you do not, even though what you do have, be it Y or Q, may cause a quality x, y, z, and maybe it could cause all of them, but still not be X, is that true? for some circumstances I would presume). Or you think X when interacting with what you think may or may not be 1,2,3 will result in potentially x,y,z less than or greater than.

So everything is about: the case that is, and may be: logic, understanding cause and effect relationships between objects, ideas, feelings: illogical is when something does not follow from the other: And we want to know where we are going, where we are heading and why, and why we want to or should want to head there: and we know the steps, the inputs that take us there: illogical is not being aware or wanting to be aware of the relationships between cause and effect between objects, ideas, feelings, people, places, things:

The state of reality: appears to be, one of stuff: and cause and effect stuff has on itself and all else:

That is said to be the logic of the universe, biologic for instance: is the chains of cause and effect related to the different types of substances referred to as 'biological substances', at least containing carbon (or some other more precise stipulations).

To narrow down understand, to organize the perception and comprehension of the inherent organization that is that which exists exactly as it does, and what is produced by its interactions and possible interactions with all else.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 11:04:06 2017 No.10454616 >>10454596 this thread needs to be deleted, how embarassing for all of you

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 11:10:05 2017 No.10454641

>>10454595
they can be and they cannot be: when they are a mistake, perhaps they are illogical? Illogically made? Not equal to the logic of reality?

Does reality define Logic, or is Logic at least in a most bare and general sense, timeless, and a 'ghost' surrounding and entwined with 'Any Possible Reality'

Just like 'Any Possible Reality' may not have the exact types of substance and exact laws of physics as ares: But there may be some eternal laws of physics that hold for All Possible Realities (all possible fundamental( and beyond) realities): As more fundamentally: All Possible Realities must obey some law: Is that, the concept of law, the concept of the need for action and activity (or not, if thats what the law calls for), similar to the concept of logic: and does logic just mean: What Is, and the causal relationship between it/s?

So it could be possible, Fundamental (and beyond (simple base physics, and increased complexity) Realities could exist and causal relationship activities between substance would be deemed illogical, illcausal, by us? (by who of us?, on what/whos authority?)

And we can look around at each other on Earth: and say that behavior is not causal: you think you are going to win a million dollars if you jump off that cliff and I believe (strongly believe, almost truely believe, proven by the objective state and understanding of the classified system of things) that I have evidence that proves your assumption and premise does not causally necessitate the conclusion, and even if we were talking of odds from all evidence it would be close to zero.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 11:12:22 2017 No.10454652 >>10454616 >generalizations and categories are not a mistake >DONT CATAGORIZE ME MOM, YOU DONT UNDERSTANDDD I HATE LABELS XDDDD

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 11:14:05 2017 No.10454659 >>10454652 it keeps shitting and pissing on itself even as a i try to tranq it before it passes

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 11:18:26 2017 No.10454683 File: 104 KB, 636x404, Paul-voix.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10449156 Welcome to the left hand path

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 13:00:35 2017 No.10455103

>>10454659
you didnt say anything, you 'not an argument''d, you highlight and spoke about nothing and said nothing. You just popped in and said "tehehe, you are wrong, but I wont say anything more"...."what are you talking about?",.."bro... im trying to train you...!! idiot"

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:16:42 2017 No.10455345 >>10454652 >>10454659 was responding to >>10454595 but could be the same person

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:17:48 2017 No.10455348 >>10455103 completely exposed

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:20:05 2017 No.10455361 >>10447163 The Foundation for Exploration by S. Goonan givea a great breakdown

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:37:20 2017 No.10455430 >>10455361 What chapter?

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:46:27 2017 No.10455481 >>10447964 the point is not if the proposition in the op is correct, op is asking where our notion that it is correct comes from

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 14:50:26 2017 No.10455502 you should have asked where our logical intuition and sense of validity comes from so these retards wouldnt immediately derail an actually interesting thread

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 15:22:54 2017 No.10455633

>>10455502
>>10455481
I am of another opinion and believe that discussing those questions like the one quoted is unbelievably childish, puerile, and just generally stupid. Reason could come from a number of different parts of your brain, medically or psychologically speaking, or from your soul, spiritually speaking. There. That is all you need to know.

Now before some long haired teeny weeny insecure philosophizing sophist comes by to question my blanket answer he wouldn’t even be able to prove wrong, I just wanted to say discussing the ACTUAL logic on the chalkboard is infinitely more rewarding than the former and has raised questions of logic like argumentum reductio ad absurdum and the function of equality in general and how it is proven.

Go fuck yourselves sophomoric dilettantes

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:00:10 2017 No.10456034 >>10455348 tranq, my subconscious would not allow me to accept that that was what had been written, consider yourself absolutely entirely exposed

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 17:03:49 2017 No.10456059 >>10455361 Get out Goonan!

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:53:03 2017 No.10456767 >>10451337 It doesn't. He has never defined what the = operator means. Furthermore, his (((identity relation))) only holds for size, excentricity and color, and not any existing predicate. Therefore, it't utter bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:57:03 2017 No.10456781 >>10452265 You call you mother mum and I call her whore. /lit/fags are fucking brainlets

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 19:59:34 2017 No.10456792 >>10455361 lmfao stop shilling your trash on here

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:32:51 2017 No.10456918

>>10456781
the mother I know is not a whore: so the B you know is unequal to the A I know. 1 body, the body is equal, a = b: but the actions of the body in time and place ME compared to time and place YU, are not equal: Mother does not equal whore. She is A and B, equal and not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 20:57:25 2017 No.10457000 >>10456918 She always has the same properties. Your higher order logic dabbling doesn't make your mother no whore.

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:04:16 2017 No.10457012

>>10447996
logic is boolean retard. that means its either true or false. just make a =1 and check for yourself. a = b and b= c therefore a = c checking : 1 = b and b = c therefore 1 = c same with 0 = b and b =c therefore 0 = c. for either values the equity holds.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:04:33 2017 No.10457014 Time... space... it’s all in your head. Read Kant, faggots

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:07:26 2017 No.10457031

>>10457012
But it’s not that simple. In mathematics, relations between quantities like equal, must be proven first.

If a = b then b=a I will give you that. No need to prove that at all. However once you add in c on the end you must PROVE that a equals c because it is never explicitly stated.

This exact proof is proposition ten of Euclids fifth book

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:12:37 2017 No.10457050 File: 14 KB, 200x226, 1510697438969.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10448268 What the fuck.

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:16:31 2017 No.10457065

>>10457000
>She always has the same properties.
no, precisely my point was that she does not:

She is A. in time and place ME, she possess and exudes qualities 1,2,3.

she does not and has never, at time and place ME which is an often time and place, exhibited qualities 4,5,6.

In time and place YU, she exhbits qualities 4,5,6.

Unequal to time and place ME; A.

She is A sometimes, B sometimes, sometimes she equals YU, sometimes she equals ME. Sometimes she is true to herself. Her A equals B in that A and B exist in the same body container: but A(A,B) existing in ME does not equal B when existing in YU, A = B when viewing all time as once, as a whole, the actions at time and place ME are done by the same body, as actions at time place YU, but the actions do not equal one another: At those times and places the former actions of A, do not equal the actions of B.

Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:21:06 2017 No.10457084

>>10457031
>This exact proof is proposition ten of Euclids fifth book
that only holds for stuff like beyond complex numbers. where our "normal" properties stops working like quaternions where order makes difference. for logic it does not matter. because A and B can only be true or false same for any other term you want to test.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:28:14 2017 No.10457113 >>10457031 and thats is simpe too : a-b = 0 then b-a=0 if b-c=0 and c-b=0 then a-b=c-b therefore a-b+b=c conclusion : a=c cant be simpler.

>>	Anonymous Wed Dec 27 21:37:00 2017 No.10457151 >>10457113 >>10457084 Fair enough that proposition is in regards to magnitudes anyway. This very notion is common notion one.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:35:58 2017 No.10457765 ...

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:39:39 2017 No.10457779 >>10448268 Based Aristotle btfo

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:44:23 2017 No.10457797 Reminder that logic is only logical based on itself :^D, an eternal tautology It comes from people being bored drawing shit in sand

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 00:54:32 2017 No.10457826 File: 172 KB, 750x1136, A8A00992-C22B-47BC-BF37-287E1C283CAB.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10448268 nunofy’all understand this kemetic wisdom channeled from da most high

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 01:12:23 2017 No.10457898 >>10452952 there can be more states, are you always happy with what you are given?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 10:09:37 2017 No.10459064 ....

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 10:18:48 2017 No.10459090 >>10447964 Not a proof, humatiesfag

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 10:40:00 2017 No.10459153

>>10451337
>>10451380
>>10451413
>>10456767
It's amazing that all of you retards fail to understand the meaning of IF. IF a = b AND b=c. In the retarded example given by the anon you reply to, a is NOT equal to b and b is NOT equal to c, therefore you cannot infer a = c. This is why I chose to study mathematics instead of (my main interest) philosophy. Enjoy being braindead and not taken seriously by anyone who isn't also a pseud

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 12:58:07 2017 No.10459548 >>10447163 = is defined to be transitive

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:16:22 2017 No.10460087

>>10448642
Umm, well for starters, lets assume a counterfactual claim: that logic, for whatever reason is not beneficial for survival or reproduction, or is otherwise simply not evolutionary beneficial (we can even g further and speculate that it be evolutionary detrimental, although this is unnecessary for our purposes).

Nevertheless, we can see that under such circumstance, logic remains as the foundation for valid inference: i.e. logically felicitous reasoning preserves truth, so that logical deductions beginning with true premises always lead to true conclusions.

Thus we have the counterfactual conditional: If logic were not evolutionary beneficial it would still function the same way.

Thus, it seems that the character of logical reasoning is independent of any evolutionary benefit it might provide.

As fr you're point about the relative "abstractness" of math in comparison to evolutionary psychology/biology, in this case you're (1) just arguing over semantics, and (2) missing the point. I wasn't making the claim that, all things considered, evolutionary psychology is, in general, unnecessarily abstract when it comes to accounting for logic or functioning as the 'foundations of logic'. (Obviously, in this case viewing logic as a branch of mathematics would be even more unacceptable and overly abstract.)

This seems to be a misinterpretation of my argument. Rather, my point was that if one is going to provide a psychologistic or biologistic account of logic, that one might do better to examine things at a less abstract, lower level - namely, at the level of individual organisms and mind. Thus, logic would be something like a component of the human cognitive apparatus (much in the same way as mental grammar or Universal Grammar - or UG, for short). In fact, I think it's probably the case that many features of logic that could be accounted for on the level of the psychological and cognitive processes of a single agent, would become utterly puzzling if we attempted to account for them on the basis of evolutionary theory (and we see similar problems with UG and other psychological processes).

What evolution CAN provide is a(n) (partial) account of why humans came to have such an innate understanding (or predisposition to understand) logic, but not what logic actually is, how it works, or "where" it comes from.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:27:24 2017 No.10460144 >>10457065 Study first order logic, then talk to me again. What I've said in my previous posts holds. Or better start with sentential logic then do first order logic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:31:08 2017 No.10460162 >>10460144 >What I've said in my previous posts holds. Not according to my perfect logic you failed to show had any faults

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:33:38 2017 No.10460169 >>10447182 If that makes sense, it is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:35:17 2017 No.10460176 >>10447967 Nope. Impossible.

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 15:47:01 2017 No.10460233

>>10459153
You're a retard. It isn't about the structure of the statement but of the model the anon they are replying to is using. He also hasn't stated it he just gave an counterexample. Furthermore, = can mean that is only holds for a specific property. He made it doubtful such that autists fight about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 16:03:28 2017 No.10460293 >>10460162 How can she be both when she has disjoint qualities? Does she became another person then? When she does how does she became the same person she was before? This isn't a Harry Potter book, it's logic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 16:45:58 2017 No.10460437 >>10460233 You and everyone who has trouble with this is clinically retarded. Go back to reading fiction and stop pretending to know logic

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:06:38 2017 No.10460519 File: 643 KB, 245x245, 1510360255519.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10460437 Whoa... that STEM really paid off for you

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:29:50 2017 No.10460618 >>10460233 >= can mean that it only holds true for a certain property Then there is no argument, a is not necessarily equal to c, why go on about this? OP asks where logic comes from, and I read about green shit and basketballs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:42:01 2017 No.10460657 >>10460618 Shitposting, however, now that you mention the OP I see the pic, and can see now where this statement > a = b and b = c => a = c comes from. Nevertheless, OP is clearly bait

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:50:53 2017 No.10460690 >>10460293 When a waitress is off from work, is she waitressing? Waitressing =/= Not Waitressing: A =/= B. But A and B are one whole in the set of Her. A and B are equally in Her, but A is not equal to B.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:55:47 2017 No.10460701 >this thread ... so this is the power of autism

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:57:36 2017 No.10460706

>>10460690
So when she is not waitressing I can't call her waitress then? So when I introduce her to my friends, I can't say this is X she is a waitress, since she isn't a waitress when off work? Can I call her woman when she is waitressing? You are negating a single property when identity is all properties of an object. It's stupid what you try to do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 17:58:56 2017 No.10460712 File: 37 KB, 400x386, 1504580559043.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10460701 >4chan ... so this is the power of autism

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 18:09:56 2017 No.10460754

>>10460706
And if she were to say a property of her identity is loving to read many books often, not being a slut, and absolutely hating corndogs: But she has read 0 books ever, has slept with over 100 men in the past year, and eaten over 300 corndogs the past year: what then?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 18:12:30 2017 No.10460761 >>10460754 I’d think she were doing something else with those corn dogs but that’s just me

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 18:50:11 2017 No.10460861
File: 57 KB, 1280x720, logic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10447996
>how do we know that a = c after the third line

I studied too much propositional logic, so I'm actually going to explain this for anyone who gives a shit. I apologize if you're just rusing and don't care.

So there are a few assumed rules we need for logic to work. These rules I'm saying we start with are obviously simplified if you also know prop logic because the full set is too large to post, but summarized:

1. True and false exist, and a proposition (defined as any capital letter) is only one of either true or false, and the number 1 will represent true, and 0 false (for brevity).

2. We can use the following tools on two propositions (OPERATORS) to generate new resulting propositions:

>And: When, individually A and B are both true, "A and B" is true.
>Or: When, individually, either A or B are both true, "A or B" is true".
>Implies and Modus Ponens: when we say A->B means that if, individually, A is true, that B is also individually true.

3. We also define a rule that only attaches to single propositions, but still gives us a new resulting proposition:

>Not: If A is true, then "Not A" is false, and visa versa.

4. Because we want to have an ordering, use parenthesis to evaluate groups, starting most nested and working outward, so "(Not A) and B" would evaluate the "Not A" before the 'and'.

Those are all the rules we need to begin, and the above are enough to prove all kinds of interesting stuff.

We can prove transitive equality in terms of the above, first and foremost.

We define equality (as it is, in the end, a definition of a quality of two propositions that follows the following rules), as "If A is true, then B is true, and if A is false, then B is false". But we can reach this definition with the rules we already established:

>By definition, Equality means (A and B) or ((Not A) and (Not B))

Which you can verify gives you expected values by trying every possible A B combination like:
>A is 1, B is 0, so (1 and 0) or ((Not 1) and (Not 0))
>(1 and 0) or (0 and 1)
>(0) or (0)
>(0)
>Which is false, so A = B evaluates to false when A is 1 and B is 0

After which if you're a real grinder, you can show, by making a table of all possible A, B, and C values, and simply plugging the results into the above function and evaluating the final result, that the principle that "A = B = C" is exhaustively true.

There are more elegant ways to do this, but I'm making the point to show that the building blocks to do this are basic, and comprehensible, even if they can be a bit of a snooze.

>>10457031
>>10447996

You're here mixing up the idea of arithmetic and propositional logic, you don't have to have both at the same time and my above proof only need be true for predicate logic's rules.

You generally can demand more rigor, though, and the above hopefully helps.

>>10448148

Don't insult people who don't get it yet, people literally dedicated their life to understanding these rules; they're hard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:05:13 2017 No.10460901 >>10460861 >I studied too much propositional logic Was it worthwhile overall? What is your opinion/thoughts on the Münchhausen trilemma?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:18:25 2017 No.10460938 >>10457113 if you can use the transitivity of =, you might as well have just said “a=c”

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:26:00 2017 No.10460967

>>10460901

>Was it worth it

Pays my bills, for whatever that’s worth.

>Maunchausen trilemma, or, Where do we ground truth, on itself in a circle, on rules we come up with (axioms), or bottomlessly?

Firmly firmly in the axiom camp. Axioms tend to be fairly obviously true from my view, and are in my view conversation starters to make progress in building useful abstractions. Some people may be wigged out by just saying stuff like

>Within this system, True and false exist and propositions are exclusively either true, or false

But I see that as the bare minimum you need to carry out a conversation on the topic of logic at the level it’s currently discussed and understood. If you can’t agree on points like that (as many havr)e), okay, but you’re at that point definitely playing a different game than the one everyone else in the field is playing, and you probably need your own rules, which you probably should codify.

But what do we call these codified rules?

Yup, axioms!

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:27:11 2017 No.10460973

Categorization of natural phenomena is an essential function in human understanding. Our abilities to seek, interpret, and use environmental feedback necessitates that we first understand at least some aspect of the environment. Because the universe is an ultimately arbitrary construction, our choices for distinction among concept are based upon our tools for receiving feedback; visual through eyes, audio through ears, and so on. Logic is mental feedback tool. The criteria by which we judge something to be logical - e.g. the a=b=c example of the OP - are convention established through social tradition. The criteria for these criteria are ability to survive social tradition through whichever strategies opponents choose to employ. Even so-called 'core' logic such as a=a insists on removing the logical proposition from everyday experience and into the hypothetical, a favored rhetorical tool by those who discuss logic. There are practically infinite arguments that a proponent of a=a could give in support of the proposition, eliminating arguments from other criteria sets or feedback tools, but in the end it is only an upholding of its own criteria set. At its best, it may be a very tiny subset of a construct we believe to exist, 'truth'. We, of course, have no way of verifying this - Gödel, Tarski, Hilbert, and Turing play us out on their four man band.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:33:01 2017 No.10460986 >>10460861 There’s literally no difference. I conceded that the transitive property of equality, something you explained there was the common notion one of Euclids Elements Please read Elements before entering into a discussion of Logic

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:34:14 2017 No.10460989 >>10447163 Aristotle.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:36:18 2017 No.10460999 File: 93 KB, 533x700, 86214a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10447163 Jesus fucking CHRIST

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:38:10 2017 No.10461009
File: 2.15 MB, 2700x6826, aqinas.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10460967
Thanks for answering.
>Pays my bills, for whatever that’s worth.
So you are an educator?

>Firmly firmly in the axiom camp. Axioms tend to be fairly obviously true from my view, and are in my view conversation starters to make progress in building useful abstractions

What are your thoughts on fellows like Aristotle and Aquinas and their use of axioms?

Has your study impacted your religious or political beliefs?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:43:11 2017 No.10461029 The pure concepts of the understanding, obviously.

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 19:51:12 2017 No.10461056

>>10461009
>Educator?

Mostly a hobbyist who got too deep.

People who deeply understand first order logic, which builds on propositional logic (or, at least try) are a year and a half of technical study away from being both very highly sought after and very highly paid.

>Aristotle

A great start.

>Aquinas

A great read, even if one disagrees with the theology.

>Religion

I let others decide on this one; I’m not ruling it out even if I personally don’t think it’s likely any particular religion got more than 20% right about anything.

That 20% is bretty gud tho.

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:08:05 2017 No.10461121

>>10461056
>Mostly a hobbyist who got too deep.
Good to see you turn into something so productive, one of my mates had a similar experience but with Hegel which led him down a strange path.

With Aristotle and Aquinas do you find their logical proofs for Gods existence and characteristics to be convincing?

Is anthropocentrism a big issue when it comes to axioms?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:13:37 2017 No.10461138 >>10460967 How does a hobby pay for bills? >confirmed for yet another anonymous liar

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:20:05 2017 No.10461148 >>10449251 >anyone who denies this can only appeal to their own logical devices and neurology So are you, and that fact does not justify jumping to the conclusion that a different form of cognition would necessarily lead to a new logic.

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:25:22 2017 No.10461161 >>10451540 Stfu Bryan

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:33:16 2017 No.10461178

>>10461056
>People who deeply understand first order logic, which builds on propositional logic (or, at least try) are a year and a half of technical study away from being both very highly sought after and very highly paid.

What are you referring to? What is this career and who is hiring?

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:39:01 2017 No.10461195
File: 5 KB, 248x203, logic2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10461138

Transition it to a job.

>>10461178
>How do you do that?

This literally took me years (though I do believe you can do it in 1.5 years if you're studying this stuff full time, 8 hours a day) so you're welcome to try, but only do it if you mean it, it is a rocky road and no, there are no sprinkles.

Start by reading any introductory programming language book (basically doesn't matter which), because programemrs are, unfortunately, the people who really are paying the modern logician and you need some basics before you can use /lit/ level logic to do cool stuff, and there's no substitute to KNOWING at least one language.

Python is tolerable. Lisp is tolerable. C++ is probably best for this, but it will break your spine.

Follow completion of basic exercises from the above book with a proofs-focused algorithms textbook, because you need to understand best practices that most language books won't teach at a level of depth you need, and you need to recognize common, already solved problems.

Kleinberg or Cormen is good for this, but this part will break your spine. There are no easy algorithms textbooks, as far as I know.

Finish it up with Russell and Norvig's Artificial intelligence, with a HEAVY focus on chapters 6 (constraint satisfaction problems), and chapter 8 (on first order logic). Use their slides liberally, they were meant to be read with the book.

By this point you're employable at 100k++ base salary if you can implement what you're reading and solve the exercises, as this would impart an incredibly deep understanding of database design and patterns at a level your coworkers will not understand (giving you a huge leg up on them on output and efficiency), as well as would allow you to get some entry-level work in formal verification, meaning you could work for NASA, or other similar performance critical environments.

This can be followed up with as many of their chapters 12-25 as you can, which is their sequence on the mathematical fundamentals behind AI. Each chapter extends the inferences and mathematics towards the design of artificial intelligence systems up to the state of the art you could learn about outside of major employers like Google. At this point, your salary will likely be between 200-600k (at the most extreme), depending on the level of specificity of your knowledge.

>tldr

tech.

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:49:04 2017 No.10461226

>>10460967
>Within this system, True and false exist and propositions are exclusively either true, or false
Would you agree that it is much simpler and clear cut when dealing with numbers, than dealing with human circumstances, and desire and choice and feeling

>but you’re at that point definitely playing a different game than the one everyone else in the field is playing, and you probably need your own rules, which you probably should codify.

I think the spirit of the OP, is wondering where did the system and rules come from, why was it chosen, how many other ways are there? Or is there some 'naturally correct', natural, logic system, and it is the one humans obviously 'stumbled on/discovered/invented'?

Are the rules only arbitrary and pulled out of thin air and have nothing to do with reality: or is there some deeper relation (which is what I mean by 'natural'), that the rules have higher timeless conceptual perfection: and a better system of rules could not have been came up with: because the ones that were, were the rules..as they should be, and are, beyond human thought and tamperament,

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:51:56 2017 No.10461237 >>10461195 > write smtlib for sat solvers that other people make > 600k maybe somewhere, but not the bay area.

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:52:02 2017 No.10461238

>>10460973
>There are practically infinite arguments that a proponent of a=a could give in support of the proposition, eliminating arguments from other criteria sets or feedback tools, but in the end it is only an upholding of its own criteria set
an Apple = an Apple

"Can I have an apple sir (asks for A)"

"Here you go customer, here is your apple" (receives the = A)

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 20:59:30 2017 No.10461266 >>10461238 "sorry sir, but I want a green one, this is a red one" "I am sorry customer, but you asked for A and I gave it to you:

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:00:03 2017 No.10461267

>>10461226
>Would you agree that it

Gotta stop you at the 'it'; it's ambiguous if you mean
>"In general, are numbers easier then people",

(Yes, but that's not because numbers are easy)

or

>"Would such an axiom apply in a world with human circumstances, desires, etc?"

To which I'd fall back on the "In this system, ..." prefix, since they're true when discussing such a limited system.

I'm of the opinion that most rules, even the ones we've enumerated about the natural world, are mostly just our guess about how things work (With perhaps nothing to do with how our universe actually works). This isn't arbitrary, since the universe seems to give feedback on our guesses (Usually to tell us we're wrong) but many of the rules we come up with are useful.

>>10461237

Life has many perspectives, I guess. All I'll say is you'd be surprised how many times people want to rebuild the wheel, don't care if doing so is unnecessary, and need a skilled wheelbuilder.

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:02:08 2017 No.10461278
File: 42 KB, 400x301, Ludwig_Wittgenstein_by_Ben_Richards.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10447163
Your question is going to run into a lot of problems and has a history in philosophy, as many pointed out. The first thing that should be asked to get to your question is, what is logic? Once you have some grasp of what logic is, then you can say if it has an origin or not, and if it does, where that origin lies.

So then what is logic? Many anons have given some answers for what it is, but I would like to go with Wittgenstein for this question since I just finished reading his Tractatus and it was pretty persuasive.

In short, this isnt a question that can be answered because of problems with self-reference. If we say what logic is, then we set limits on what is and is not logic. There is then the problem of how exactly we are saying something about logic, as if, we are outside of logic.

Think of it this way. From our limited perspective as humans, the world is everything that is the case. Everything that is true is out there. The fact that I typed this out and posted, the fact that whoever is reading this now is in fact reading it, etc. These are the facts, and the sum of them is the world, as far as we can tell. Wittgenstein wouldnt even want to put in the "as far as we can tell" part. To him it is very final.

So, what is logic? Logic is how we talk about what is possible, the possible states of affairs. All true states of affairs will be the world.

Anon will reply to this "you are a faggot"

That is an assertion that can be true or false, and in hindsight, we will know if it actually is the case. This is how the limits of logic become the limits of the world. Logic will be "bigger" then the world since is has everything possible, and only what is true within it is the world. So logic necessarily sets the limit.

This is already too long, so long story short, from here Wittgenstein shows that solipsism is incredibly important for the expressive power in any talk of logic. He agrees with solipsism, so the world becomes my world. If that is the case, the limit of logic becomes the limit of my world.

So then how can I say anything about the relations between logic and the world, like where logic comes from? That seems to be out of reach.

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:02:53 2017 No.10461282

>>10461266
"A is red apple, B is green apple"

"ok I will take a B"

"ok here you go"

"Um... this B you gave me does not appear to equal the one in the picture"

"why do you say that; I said green apple = B, that is a green apple"

"its got brown bruise spots all over"

"an apples an apple, B=B, deal with it kid, nothing personal"

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:06:51 2017 No.10461294

>>10461267
>Gotta stop you at the 'it'; it's ambiguous if you mean
>>"In general, are numbers easier then people"
I didnt mean numbers or dealing with them are easy, only that the True Falseness divide is clearer cut:

It is true that in this moment I am euphoric.

For that to be a logically true statement (and maybe here is the difference, requires scientific and semantic investigation) we would need to define: 'moment' (whos definition, who knows the true definitions?) and define 'euphoric' (again, who decides, how much dopamine and endorphins per sq cm per unit time = euphoric) (and can I be euphoric and sad at the same time?)

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:13:22 2017 No.10461312

>>10461294
In formal logic you dont worry about if premises turn out to be true. You care about the form of the argument, hence, formal logic.

All dogs are cats
All cats are birds
Thus, all dogs are birds

Is a perfectly vaild arugment, but not a sound one

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:21:44 2017 No.10461340 >>10461278 what

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:36:14 2017 No.10461392 >>10461340 >[The question where does logic come from belongs] to the same class as the question whether the good is more or less identical than the beautiful In short, there is no way to answer this question. Its a confused question

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 21:40:36 2017 No.10461409

>>10461340
>>10461392
Actually maybe a better way to explain this is this

Take the metaphor that assertions/propositions are pictures. They picture things which we decide are true or false.

You cant picture the act of picturing. In the same way, logic isnt an object to be discussed in the way that OP's question is asking for

Anonymous Thu Dec 28 22:22:04 2017 No.10461571

>>10461409
>>10461392
This, I guess would be pure guessing (we hope educatedly), but a way to maybe approach what OP might also be getting at, is the idea of universality, or fundamentality (or some plato realm of form: Humans have discoverd Thee Logic): Is what percent of intelligent species throughout the universe would develop logic similar to ours?
Would that tell us anything though? If 95% develop similar systems modes and methods of logic?

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 23:16:02 2017 No.10461763 >>10461278 you are a faggot

>>	Anonymous Thu Dec 28 23:58:51 2017 No.10461906 >>10461763 according to the case/s of the world, what do you believe that term to mean?

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 00:54:17 2017 No.10462081

logic is intuitive. there's no more justification for it than for your perceptions, but not many people doubt the external world

the burden of proof lies on skeptics.

also, it seems like there are things which are self-evidently true, and that logic is built on these fundamental axioms. if these fundamental things weren't true, the universe wouldn't be able to exist like it does currently. for example, the principle of non-contradiction.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 01:43:54 2017 No.10462241 >>10461121 bumping for this logicanon

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 08:42:42 2017 No.10463103 Here is a good example of it http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 09:37:25 2017 No.10463227 >>10460999 >logic comes from god >god does illogical things >"true" (god's) logic promotes that pi = 3 (II Chron. 4) I think I know what >>10449156 is talking about now.

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 12:13:33 2017 No.10463637

>>10461571
> (we hope educatedly)
stop

>Would that tell us anything though?

The point I was making is there is no point to asking questions like the OP. If there is a logic that is different from ours then we cant talk about it unless you are able to show that Wittgenstein's conception of logic doesnt hold

Again im just parroting Wittgenstein because he made a persuasive case, and this case is only about logic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 12:32:02 2017 No.10463680 >>10463637 why did you not even want to consider my example and question, just stop, wahh, wahh, what cannot be conclusively answered cannot be spoke about, wahh

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 12:55:34 2017 No.10463741

>>10463680
Your question is about figuring out how likely to exist are fictional beings which have intellects capable of a logic we cant comprehend

This has nothing to do with logic. Go to /sci/ and ask them how likely we are to find other intelligent life in the universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:22:58 2017 No.10463852 File: 38 KB, 283x283, 1391706112455.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10461195 Thanks a lot anon, I was already planning on going deep into logic so the advice to keep coding in mine is appreciated it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:24:48 2017 No.10463858 >>10461195 >>10463852 Also, how did you get a job exactly? You were studying this as a hobby and just started applying to tech companies saying you could do this or that?

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:52:39 2017 No.10463962

>>10461195
hey anon if you are still here, what books should I use to know more about zeroth and first order logic. I am adequate at c++ after programming as a hobby for 2 years, I want to make mad money like my comp sci friends if my mech engr degree doesn't pan out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:54:31 2017 No.10463971 >>10463741 idiot. moron

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:55:21 2017 No.10463974 >>10463962 Im not him but I recommend An Introduction to Symbolic Logic by Parsons. Its what UCLA uses and you can find it as a pdf online

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:56:35 2017 No.10463979 >>10463971 Arguments are tough huh?

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:59:47 2017 No.10463993 >>10463974 thanks anon

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 13:59:53 2017 No.10463994

>>10463637
>The point I was making is there is no point to asking questions like the OP
>In short, there is no way to answer this question. Its a confused question

THATS WHAT YOU THINK!!!! WITH YOUR IGNORANCE!!! WHO ARE YOU AND WHY ARE YOU WITH WHAT AUTHORITY CONFIDENTLY MAKING SUCH DEFINITIVE PROCLAMATIONS

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:01:23 2017 No.10464002 >>10463979 >im ignorant and cant think about a subject so I will assume everyone else is as dumb as me

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:04:23 2017 No.10464017 >>10463994 >all opinions must be couched in pseudo Christian relativist humility or my feefees get hurt and I become hysteric Thanks, modern academia

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:06:25 2017 No.10464024 maths has tons of high level problems that you are able to look at that have been solved. Is this so for logic as well? Is there somewhere where you can see example of high level formal logic applied step by step

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:09:39 2017 No.10464037 >>10464002 Youre not fooling anyone by offering non-arguments

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:10:54 2017 No.10464039 >>10463994 I didnt make that argument with the justification being, I made it so there The justification is in the argument. Did you even read it? I offered the conclusion up front, and then showed the line of reasoning

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:14:23 2017 No.10464052 File: 19 KB, 500x208, Principia_Mathematica_54-43.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10464024 Yes, here is a small piece from Russell's Principia Mathematica Proofs can go on for many steps just like any other mathematical proof.

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:25:07 2017 No.10464092

>>10461195

hi anon. Im a second year at a top 20 uni just starting a cs path. Im getting into combinatorics and some graph theory in my math courses.

Can you help me learn more about this field of formal logic? What kind of comp sci classes do you think are going to be most valuable to me? I have interest in ai/machine learning mostly but haven't been exposed to a lot

I know some python (enough to write an asteroids game) and about the same amt of scheme/racket. Going for C++ next...I have some family friends involved with SAS as well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:46:20 2017 No.10464188 >>10464017 >im ignorant and cant think about a subject so I will assume everyone else is as dumb as me

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:48:14 2017 No.10464193 >>10464039 No, you only said what I said mocking you: >>10463994 >>10464002 That is all you said.

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 14:49:33 2017 No.10464198

>>10463858

Just apply. Those channels can and did work, albeit in hindsight less well then recommendations, which work less well then name-drops for a role from a friend, which are what you really want.

Never forget that it takes a huge load off a boss when their employees know someone 'perfect for a role'. It's way easier than interrogating a crew of randos and hoping one of them would work out; interviewing blind is soul crushing and any means to avoid it are tried first.

>>10464092

I can't speak for your computer sciences courselist. Focus as exclusively as you can on the parts that see actual use, or that you have anomalous interest in compared to your peers. The first gets you a job, the second gets you a good job.

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 15:37:47 2017 No.10464414

>>10464193
>>10464193
No, you are just restating the conclusion over and over again

Let me repost it for you before you get distracted again by your emotions

>>10461278
Your question is going to run into a lot of problems and has a history in philosophy, as many pointed out. The first thing that should be asked to get to your question is, what is logic? Once you have some grasp of what logic is, then you can say if it has an origin or not, and if it does, where that origin lies.

So then what is logic? Many anons have given some answers for what it is, but I would like to go with Wittgenstein for this question since I just finished reading his Tractatus and it was pretty persuasive.

>Here is the conclusion up front
In short, this isnt a question that can be answered because of problems with self-reference. If we say what logic is, then we set limits on what is and is not logic. There is then the problem of how exactly we are saying something about logic, as if, we are outside of logic.

>Here is the line of reasoning to get you to that conclusion
Think of it this way. From our limited perspective as humans, the world is everything that is the case. Everything that is true is out there. The fact that I typed this out and posted, the fact that whoever is reading this now is in fact reading it, etc. These are the facts, and the sum of them is the world, as far as we can tell. Wittgenstein wouldnt even want to put in the "as far as we can tell" part. To him it is very final.

So, what is logic? Logic is how we talk about what is possible, the possible states of affairs. All true states of affairs will be the world.

Anon will reply to this "you are a faggot"

That is an assertion that can be true or false, and in hindsight, we will know if it actually is the case. This is how the limits of logic become the limits of the world. Logic will be "bigger" then the world since is has everything possible, and only what is true within it is the world. So logic necessarily sets the limit.

This is already too long, so long story short, from here Wittgenstein shows that solipsism is incredibly important for the expressive power in any talk of logic. He agrees with solipsism, so the world becomes my world. If that is the case, the limit of logic becomes the limit of my world.

>Here is the setup to get to the conclusion
So then how can I say anything about the relations between logic and the world, like where logic comes from? That seems to be out of reach.

THUS, by out of reach, I mean, we cant say anything about it.

That is how I get there, NOT by saying I am an authority so thus this is that

or

because I cant think outside of it, no one else can either

You are adding that in.

If you have rebuttal, offer it. If you have an argument, offer it. Stop bitching about me making assertions.

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 16:19:58 2017 No.10464596

>>10464414
you seemed to imply it preposterous that intelligent beings such as ourselves could exist elsewhere in the universe (not to mention a severely strong likelihood (or you at least did not appear interested in talking about it)). Of course we cannot know the percentages of them that would develop logic systems similar to ours (and what is meant by the term similar (they dont use the symbol A so it is entirely dissimilar!) but I can ask: if it is the case, that 95% or 99% of them have came to similar use and understanding and system of 'logic' humans have: would this potentially say anything deeper about the universe and the nature of logic: and that (humans understanding and methods and uses of) logic at least ""OP: does not come from"" solely a whimful invention of the human mind.

And can we think of how it might be theoretically possible to develop any other systems of logic: are there any other different earthly systems of logic:

Or is "The System Of Logic", "The Natural System Of Logic" (that nearly universally: "The Natural System Of Intelligence" would come to recognize as being some fundamental, or inherent, conceptual system, of order, communication, understanding, physics, reality: It logic simply: Truth: Truth, symbolized?)

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 16:57:27 2017 No.10464762 >>10447172 I think it's just called Logistan nowadays actually

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 17:51:48 2017 No.10464970 bump

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 19:27:21 2017 No.10465446 burps

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 21:16:30 2017 No.10466034 sharts

Anonymous Fri Dec 29 21:37:48 2017 No.10466108

>board that churns out walls of pseudointellectual musings on historiography of philosophy can't into babby logic
>literal teenage retard that redditposts with first 10 minutes of high-school intro into boolean logic and autism about earning $600k at NASA after reading a quarter of CS grad school first semester syllabus is taken seriously
Equivalence relations are by definition transitive. Take a fucking introductory algebra course at your nearby community college.

>>	Anonymous Fri Dec 29 21:48:51 2017 No.10466165 >>10466108 I don't think he was asking only about what was in the image.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 30 00:38:26 2017 No.10466664 >>10460087 You're presupposing your own evolved logic to prove a point about the validity of logic.

Anonymous Sat Dec 30 02:48:55 2017 No.10467019

>>10466108

>Equivalence relations are by definition transitive

Only if you take that as a definition.

>600k at NASA

Confirmed for brainlet, you didn't read.

You're not getting that in government work unless you're an athletics coach. He also made it fairly clear you get entry level 100k for that.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature