>logicbros...
>>16791770He is right, but the mathematical platonists won't like hearing this.
>>16791770
>>16791777wtf are you on about? This is literally the foundation of platonism and the genesis og "platonic idealism."
>>16791781why the fuck does anyone listen to this guy?
>>16791865Triggered magatard detected
>>16791770He's right though. As another example, proof by contradiction does not correspond to anything in the physical world, yet is used all the time in math.
>>16791777what?the platonists are the ones who agreemath resides in the world of forms, not in the real worldan ideal, imaginary world, where straight lines and random probabilities existin fact this thinking is exactly what sparked platonismmath doesn't exist in our universe, so it must exist "somewhere" else
>>16791781what if the guy who "chooses not to think this way about water", is a quantum mechanics physicist?
>>16791886This is such a perverted misunderstanding of platonist schizophrenia. No, platonists don't think the platonic world is "Imaginary", they think it exists as a part of reality, independent of human imaginations.
>>16791889A "quantum mechanics physicist"? What is that?
>>16791891no it's not in this universeit's a realm which transcends time and spaceyou can't go there, it's only accessible with the mind>>16791895>physicistA physicist is a scientist who specializes in the field of physics,>quantum mechanicsQuantum mechanics is the fundamental physical theory that describes the behavior of matter and of light; its unusual characteristics typically occur at and below the scale of atoms.you really couldn't spend 5 seconds googling it?
>>16791917"Quantum mechanics physicist" is not a commonly used phrase among physics circles and you look like a buffoon for using it. I was just pointing that out.
>>16791929Well you can always look it up if you don't understand it.
>>16791943>still doesn't understand that he's being retardedSad
>>16791944here let me help you
>>16791945>here look at this chatbot justify my retardation for meNo thanks
>>16791770>the human mind isn't part of nature>promotes pure subjectivity>gets butthurt about a circle not existing in "reality"Peak German philosophy.
>>16791946and what is your source for your claim?
>>16791950You can have particle physicists, who study particle physics and quantum field theory.You can have physicists working on quantum optics.You can have condensed matter physicists who apply quantum mechanics to study metals and other large things.You can have mathematical physicists who study the mathematical structures involved in quantum mechanics.No one calls themselves "quantum mechanics physicist." I won't bother trying to give "sources" for this. You can consider it free education and accept your stupidity or fuck off.
>>16791963>I won't bother trying to give "sources" for this. I accept your concession.
what did he mean by this?
>>16791989He means Materialism is for the unwashed masses. Which he is right about, of course.
>>16791770Logic isn’t based on assumptions lmao they are inferences with basis of reason you can deduce anything that stands to reason with fundamental facts
>>16791992>Logic isn’t based on assumptions lmao ... Name your favorite logic and explain which "fundamental facts" its inference rules are based on that elevates it above all the other options.
>>16791996>NameYeah and I put 10$ million you won't use Google ten seconds after learning it
>>16791992>Logic isn’t based on assumptions lmao ... Name your favorite logic and explain which "fundamental facts" its inference rules are based on that elevates it above all the other options.>>16792005>Yeah and I put 10$ million you...That's not a logic. Name your favorite logic and explain which "fundamental facts" its inference rules are based on that elevates it above all the other options.
>>16791992Logic is in fact a cyclical paradox.It is based on the assumption that our universe is logical.The fact that our universe is logical is absolutely fascinating and borderline religious.
>>16792019>Logic is in fact a cyclical paradox.>It is based on the assumption that our universe is logical.Show me which logic textbook you learned this from. I don't remember any such assumptions being made anywhere.
>>16792019You’re dumb asf what’s going on here
>>16792022the fact that math is based on self-evident axioms is an examplewhat if 1+1 = 3?it is illogical, but what if there was a universe where this was true?why of all possible universes we ended up with the one that "makes sense"?
>>16792030>the fact that math is based on ...That's not a logic textbook. >It is based on the assumption that our universe is logical.Show me which logic textbook you learned this from. I don't remember any such assumptions being made anywhere.
>>16792022>Show me which logic textbook you learned this fromWhy do you need a textbook? Aren't you old enough to evaluate the veracity of statements using your mental capacity?
>>16792046>Why do you need a textbook?I don't need a textbook. You do, so that you could learn what logic actually is in a /sci/ context.
>>16792048Logic textbooks won't teach you this. This is metaphysics, it's something you have to think hard about and not something to which you can find pre-approved answers in a textbook.
>>16792050>Logic textbooks won't teach you this. This is metaphysicsWhich metaphysics book did you learn this from? Oh. You don't actually read, do you?
>>16792054How did you become so allergic to thinking and using your head? Do you need an authority or textbook to tell you to flush your toilet after using it?
>>16792058I have better things to think about than your pants-on-head-retarded white trash opinions.
>>16792060>I have better things to think aboutSuch as what? How you can be a more effective slave for your ruler?
>>16792063Such as how to more effectively filter /pol/troons.
Maybe I'm just being unfair to you. I'll try to recount some of the things you posted:>>16792019>Logic is based on the assumption that our universe is logical>The fact that our universe is logical is absolutely fascinatin and borderline religious.What am I supposed to make of this? That your religion elevated an assumption into a fact?>>16792050>Logic textbooks won't teach you this. This is metaphysicsBut I thought it was a "fact". Now it's metaphysics? Why did you suddenly demote your "fact" into metaphysics?
>>16792091I'm not the anon who posted that. I'm just someone who found your subservience to authority figures very cringe.
>>16792086The price of comfy is eternal minimization
>>16792096If knowing what you're talking about is subservience to authority, why did Ye Olde Greats write so much about their wank philosophies? Were they trying to subjugate the readers to their own authority? What kind of psychopath writes a book that frees the reader from the shackles of ignorance, only to enslave him again in the shackles of authority?
>>16792102They were noting down their own thoughts and opinions on the subjects. The purpose of doing philosophy is to learn to think, not to endlessly refer to what's been written by others as though they were sources of definitive answers.
>>16792117>They were noting down their own thoughts and opinions on the subjects.If you had actually read any of it, you would know quite a bit of it was intended to be pedagogical. But you're functionally illiterate so I guess you can stick to your head canon and declare yourself a winner.> The purpose of doing philosophy is to learn to thinkWhich philosophy textbook did you learn this from?
>>16791989>hePlease don't misgender xher.
>>16792123>Which philosophy textbook did you learn this from?I learnt it from the textbook of life, a book which you can benefit from reading.
>>16792141>I learnt it from the textbook of lifeIf "the textbook of life" is so great, why didn't it teach you to distinguish between pondering open questions and trying to override the bare basics of established subjects with vague bullshit you absorbed from your low-IQ environment by osmosis? I guess "the textbook of lowlife" is all you can afford with the spare change you earn at the gas station.
>>16792149It forgot 'insular' was also a word. :^)
>>16792153>insularUh huh. Which one of the poles are you posting from? Also, I assume this is your first time using the internet?
>I learned logic by myself!!>see, my definition of logic says it somehow relates to the world, which is wrong!>why do you want me to cite figures of authority??!?imagine fighting a strawman like this and completely discarding the fact that practically of the things we learn about philosophy and other fields of knowledge were actually taught to us by other people.how do absolute retards like these even find this board?
>>16792214>practically of the things we learn about philosophy and other fields of knowledge were actually taught to us by other peopleWhich textbook on cognition did you learn this from?
>>16792214>practically of the things*practically everything>>16791770>>16791989IMO, he's right in some senses but COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT OF LOGIC, MATHS AND PHYSICS.which is ironic, because... technology is the most obvious proof that modeling the world based on math, logic and physics actually works. it's even funnier when you realize that germany has been a technological powerhouse for many decades.>>16792219ever heard about "philosophy of science"?here's an intro for you to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
>>16791781>Retard thinks h20 is Water.Diogenes be like, after showing us either Ice or Vapor, BEHOLD! Water.
>>16792224>ever heard about "philosophy of science"?Yes, I have. Now explain what it has to do with your statement.Protip #1: you won't.Protip #2: you can't.Protip #3: you never actually read that wiki article.
>>16792224>technology is the most obvious proof that modeling the world based on math, logic and physics actually works.And simultaneously, it's the most obvious proof that it actually doesn't work.
>>16792227Perhaps mr. diognenes should be less of a retard and learn that those are just different phases of water.
>>16792230>Yes, I have. Now explain what it has to do with your statement.are you fucking retarded? I just told you that philosophy of science is the study of how knowledge is passed. which is what you asked. what else do you want me to explain?that's just one of the things philosophy of science studies, though, but still.>>16792235>it's the most obvious proof that it actually doesn't work.we are using computers or a smartphone right now to communicate with one each other. these computers are literally part of our reality now.
>>16792240>philosophy of science is the study of how knowledge is passedWhich Philosophy of Science textbook did you learn this from? Also, how did I know you didn't read the article you posted? :^)
>>16792240>we are using computers or a smartphone right now to communicate with one each other. these computers are literally part of our reality now.Explain how that refutes what I wrote. Hard mode: explain logically
>>16792241>>16792242>I will keep asking questions and saying nothing until he contradicts himself or comes up with a controversial statementbye, retard.
>>16792247You already shat the bed twice. I'm actually giving you a chance to turn this around.
Protip: if your species develops a model of reality that leads to its own extinction, that model of reality is clearly flawed.
>>16792254Which textbook did you learn that from?
>>16792256See >>16792149You should learn to ... >... distinguish between pondering open questions and trying to override the bare basics of established subjects with vague bullshit you absorbed from your low-IQ environment by osmosis
>>16792254>leads to its own extinctionprove this.you have a very weird model of reality :^)
>>16792267I get not reading an entire wiki article (even though you're the one who brought it up) but you clearly didn't look at your own pic. Or maybe you did but you're so mentally challenged you can't see how it makes my case.
>>16792258>not an argumentI accept your concession
I don't know what these morons are even "arguing" about right now
>>16792274what article are you talking about? population has grown a lot, and the pic shows that. there is no extinction, quite the contrary...unless you redefine "extinction" to gain internet points and waste time, of course.
>>16792275>>16792278>>16792280>mentally ill subhumans
>>16791770>hard physical calculations are assumptionsphilosophers are fucking RETARDED
>>16792479>hard physical calculationsJust like how Aristotle's philosophy is grounded in mostly empirical analysis of human behavior. Recent scientific progress made by Newton and Galileo is based on universal laws or general applicability. Buy there is no such thing as “proof” as most people think. The literally meaning of the word “to prove” means “to test,” as in to “probe” something.” Knowledge only comes after the fact, not before. It is empirical in nature. All proofs involving logic are flawed for this reason, since logic itself is derived empirically, and you’re forced to make assumptions about the whole even though you only have a part. The truth is that logic does not exist. Nor axioms or laws or causes. Everything simply is.
>>16792479>hard physical calculations are assumptionsExactly what is a "hard physical calculation"? Is it in the room with us? How does it relate to reality?
>>16792633>logic itself is derived empirically>All proofs involving logic are flawed for this reasonEven if your retarded premise was true, the conclusion doesn't follow, In what sense are valid logical "flawed" and why? >you’re forced to make assumptions about the whole even though you only have a partWhat is "the whole" and how does logic make "assumptions" about it?Protip: none of these questions will receive any rational, thoughtful answer. Just more bio-LLM slop reiterating the same nonsense opinion.
>>16792633>logic itself is derived empiricallyLogic isn't "derived" from anything. It's part of the structure of cognition itself (at least the essential basis is). Maybe you want to claim self-reflection is an "empirical science" and conclude laws of mind established that way are provisional, just like laws of nature. Yes, I bet you're already searching your bookmarks for that wiki article about the Induction Problem (which you misremembered as a "deduction problem"). What if gravity shifts direction tomorrow? Can't rule it out! We just assume it won't! Ok. But what if "X and not X" becomes true (in your mind) tomorrow? Directly, just like, without any extra steps of retard philosophy? Then you will lose your mind. Simple.
>>16792670>Then you will lose your mind. Simple.Not at all. Consider the statement X: "The earth is moving". Like most people before copernicus, you consider it false because clearly they didn't feel the movement of the earth. But since copernicus, you can consider it to be true because treating the earth as moving gives a better scientific theory of the sun and planets. There is no problem with maintaining the idea that X is both true and false in your mind.
>>16792680>There is no problem with maintaining the idea that X is both true and false in your mind.I know it's possible to hold retarded and self-contradicting ideas in your head (e.g. your post) without going mad in an obvious way, but that's not what I'm talking about and you know it. Since you know it but pretend you don't, I'm going to accept your concession here.
>>16792684It's quite strange to believe that I conceded when you're the one who has troubles stating what you meant clearly, in a way that isn't false. Also, you should look up paraconsistent logic. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
>>16792688I did specifically contrast between simply having retarded and inconsistent ideas and losing consistency at the base cognitive level that inspires it as a logical principle in the first place. You're just too dumb to read.>you should look up paraconsistent logic.You didn't read that wiki article and you've never read a textbook on logic. Maybe you should do that.
>>16792694There's nothing inconsistent with my example of the (not) moving earth. Assigning both truth values to the statement makes sense, when interpreted appropriately. That's what you're missing. You have this account of how your mind works which involves this fictional, non-empirical "base cognitive level". In reality, the brain is much more complex than that you and it only comes to accept statements like the non-contradiction principle through a long and messy historical, sociocultural process of brains using trial and error to make better sense of the world they inhabit.
>>16792701Obvious LLM slop. Still made me reply. Good job.
>>16792706Your fear of engaging with ideas outside your comfort zone is apparent. I hope you mature a little and grow out of it one day.
>>16792710Your LLM spam gives us nothing to discuss. Your best effort to prove your point consisted from noting that people used to believe "not X" and now they believe "X", for some particular X. From that, you somehow deduce people believe "X and not X". Now, that's extremely retarded, but it's also irrelevant. Even if your retarded philosophy makes you spout that shit, you don't perceive yourself as not spouting it while you are spouting it; you only perceive it as not shit while it is shit.For details, please consult: >>16792694>I did specifically contrast between simply having retarded and inconsistent ideas and losing consistency at the base cognitive level that inspires it as a logical principle in the first place.
>>16792721>noting that people used to believe "not X" and now they believe "X", for some particular X. From that, you somehow deduce people believe "X and not X"No? The point was that X by itself is meaningless without a context and interpretation. In the context of common sense, it makes sense to say that the earth is not moving for the obvious reason that no one feels it moving (in philosophy, this is called the manifest image). In contrast, in the scientific image, it makes sense to say the earth is moving because that gives a neater description of astronomical observations of the planets. You are simply ignoring the contexts in which statements are interpreted and assuming that you already have a "God-given' context and interpretation for every statement which allows you to assign unique truth values to it. Once you accept the importance of interpretations and contexts, you can see how even things like the law of non-contradiction can be subject to scrutiny.
>>16792733Please tell me more about how you simultaneously perceived yourself to be writing and not writing that low-IQ slop while your brown, stubby fingers were mashing the keys.
>>16792740If reading that was too hard, let me simplify it for you (again): there is no evidence that the working of minds is based your fictional, non-empirical idea of a "base cognitive level"
>>16792747>here is no evidence that the working of minds is based your fictional, non-empirical idea of a "base cognitive level"I bet you perceived yourself not thinking this as you were thinking it. Maybe you even felt it was not retarded while you felt that it was retarded.
>>16792747Do you really not understand the difference between "X and not X" arising at the level of basic comprehension and it arising at the level of (faulty) modeling?
>>16792750>the level of basic comprehensionCan you tell me what "basic comprehension" tells you about the statement "the earth is moving"?
>>16792755>Can you tell me what "basic comprehension" tells you about the statement "the earth is moving"?Nothing at all. I guess you literally cannot tell the difference between the two.
>>16792759So your basic comprehension violates the law of the excluded middle since you can't seem to assign any truth value to the statement.
>>16792763>So your basic comprehension violates the law of the excluded middle since you can't seem to assign any truth value to the statement.No, it doesn't. Your statement simply doesn't mean anything on that level. It's a product of world modeling.
>>16792768>a product of world modelingOr maybe "world modeling" isn't quite the right term; you could say the bare basics of cognition are already world modeling. But it's definitely a much higher level of abstraction.
>>16792768I see, so which are the statements which are amenable to being analyzed at the level of "basic comprehension" and which ones aren't?
>>16792776>which are the statements which are amenable to being analyzed at the level of "basic comprehension" and which ones aren't?You don't analyze statements on that level. You perceive no relative movement, so you comprehend that you're stable on the ground. If you simultaneously comprehend the opposite (as opposed to merely entertaining poorly thought-out statements based on some Nth order abstractions), congratulations: you are insane.
>>16792782>You perceive no relative movement, so you comprehend that you're stable on the ground.Aren't "relative movement", "stable", "ground" already sophisticated abstractions?
>>16792787>Aren't "relative movement", "stable", "ground" already sophisticated abstractions?They only become "sophisticated abstractions" when you start analyzing it and all these elements become objects for analytical thought to play with. A cat doesn't need any of those concepts to know if it's stable or not.
>>16792792If you're saying that "basic comprehension" happens at an almost reflexive level for cats and humans, then that seems to be a claim about how human and cat brains actually work. Whether or not your mind functions in a way so as to adhere to the laws of logic like non-contradiction is then not guaranteed and would become an empirical question.
>>16792805>self-reflection is empiricalYou're insanely predictable. See:>>16792670 >Maybe you want to claim self-reflection is an "empirical science" and conclude laws of mind established that way are provisional, just like laws of nature. Yes, I bet you're already searching your bookmarks for that wiki article about the Induction Problem (which you misremembered as a "deduction problem"). What if gravity shifts direction tomorrow? Can't rule it out! We just assume it won't! Ok. But what if "X and not X" becomes true (in your mind) tomorrow? Directly, just like, without any extra steps of retard philosophy? Then you will lose your mind. Simple.
On a base level, any situation (or at least your perception of one) simply is what it is. You can't conceive of it being simultaneously what it isn't. You can't even entertain explicit counterfactuals yet - your brain probably considers them on some level of processing, but that only serves to build up a basic comprehension of what IS.You may then come up with a framework to describe situations. Non-contradiction would be a part of that framework's meta, corresponding to the aforementioned state of affairs, which is immutable. "X and not X" will never bubble up from the same place "X = X" did, unless you're stark-raving mad. It's an inherently different situation from discovering exceptions to some "law" of nature, or even waking up to a reversal of that "law".Now, when you're describing situations and not just directly experiencing them, you can entertain counterfactuals and even consider idiotic "X and not X" propositions, but by God, if you then abstract "X and not X" as an actual principle and manage to project it down to the level of your raw comprehension, you will have accomplished the incredible feat of going maximally insane through the sheer power of your stubborn idiocy.
>>16792819I'm not at all talking about whether your brain will accept "X and not X" tomorrow. I'm saying that there is no empirical basis for the claim that it works "based on logic" altogether. If you think about how the brain works, this should be clear - it works based on electrical impulses between neurons. Whether or not you can model the working of this collection of neurons at a higher level as some sort of information processor which takes "statements" and interprets them to be true or false using "basic comprehension" becomes a very non-trivial question about how brains function. That is, your idea of a "basic cognitive level" or "basic comprehension" is already an abstract empirical hypothesis of how brains function and not as "direct" as you think it is.
>>16792842>there is no empirical basis for the claim that it works "based on logic" altogetherI never said anything about brains being "based on logic" or looked for any "empirical basis". You're really going off the rails here and perceiving the situation incorrectly. But note that even a mentally ill retard like you only perceives the situation one way, not both ways simultaneously.
>>16792858>I never said anything about brains being "based on logic" You just used a used different term like "base cognitive level", and like I've said many times now, that's just a fiction, since it has no empirical basis.
>>16792860>base cognitive levelThat's not an empirical statement and it's not saying anything about brains. Try again.>that's just a fiction, since it has no empirical basis.It's only fiction to subhuman bio-LLMs (like you). Actual humans experience what it refers to directly. They don't need to "hypothesize" it and then look for observations that (provisionally) confirm it.
>>16792841See >>16792842. You have a theory that your brain works based on some sort of logical framework and I'm saying that theory is an empirical hypothesis of how brains function. >>16792863Okay, so your "cognition" has nothing to do with your brain. That's clear now.
>>16792868>You have a theory that your brain works based on some sort of logical frameworkYou hallucinated this. Unironically take your meds and try again.>that theory is an empirical hypothesisThe "theory" that you only comprehend a situation one way at a given time and not simultaneously the opposite? When you shit yourself with impotent rage, do are your panties sullied but also not sullied? :^)
>>16792875>The "theory" that you only comprehend a situation one way at a given time and not simultaneously the opposite?Yes, you have a theory of "comprehension" and how that theory doesn't allow you to "comprehend" "opposite situations" "simultaneously". All these are theoretical terms.
>>16792886>Yes, you have a theoryYou seem to have a theory about what I have. What empirical evidence can you provide to support your theory?
>>16792896My theory is based on the empirical evidence that the brain is built up of neurons. Do you disagree with that evidence?
>>16792909>the brain is built up of neuronsOnce again you go off the rails with a total nonsequitur. I'm asking you about the statement you just made, regarding some theory of yours about my having a theory. What are you basing it on?
>>16792916? I'm basing it on what you said in your post >>16792841>You can't conceive of it being simultaneously what it isn't.>your brain probably considers them on some level of processing, but that only serves to build up a basic comprehension of what IS.> Non-contradiction would be a part of that framework's metaDo you disagree that these are hypotheses you are making about how minds function?
>>16792921>basing it on >hypotheses>minds>functionThese seem to be further terms in your baseless theory.
>>16792926I see what you're doing, but it only serves to highlight my point that "basic comprehension" is not a real thing. I think what this conversation shows is that communication works not through a shared "basic comprehension" between individuals but through temporary equilibria resulting from the reactions of neurons in your head in response to the electromagnetic signals impinging on your eyes arising from the mechanical impulses on my keyboard caused by the reactions of neurons in my head (and vice versa, of course). We have probably reached one such temporary equilibrium right now :)
>>16791992The law of the excluded middle is an assumption, for example. If it weren't, then what would make of the liar's paradox? To me, logic is a formalism to generalize our intuition of everyday life to more "exotic" circumstances. It's grown historically and is a tool.
>>16792954>it only serves to highlight my point that everything is a heckin' theory because you use words to talk about itYep. It sure does, retard. Now tell me more about your theory about how I was making "hypotheses" about "minds" and "functions" and some other theoretical constructs that are a part of your baseless theory. :^)
>>16792959>The law of the excluded middle is an assumptionNo, it isn't.
>>16792960Your frustration upon being exposed to the faults in your worldview is natural. Take a few deep breaths and turn off your wifi for some time. Goodbye.
>>16792967>the faults in your worldviewYou seem to have some kind of theory about my having some kind of "worldview". You also hypothesize something about my being frustrated. Care you to elaborate on this? Be sure to provide evidence for your theory and to elaborate on it without circling back to your own theoretical constructs.
>>16792967lol. why don't you like it when someone else uses your logic, rabbi?
>>16792974You use my logic because you find it persuasive, so I welcome it.
>>16792976>You use my logicnah i'm just here to mock you and other golems who think logic is optional
>>16792954>communication works not through a shared "basic comprehension" between individuals but through temporary equilibria resulting from the reactions of neurons in your head in response to the electromagnetic signals impinging on your eyes arising from the mechanical impulses on my keyboard caused by the reactions of neurons in my head (and vice versa, of course).
>>16791770This thread doesn't belong here.Stop wasting time and space arguing with the retard that think arguments can't and shouldn't be based on logic.
>>16792977>>16792980Good job, your preferred "defense of logic" is... an emotional outburst.
>>16792989the only emotion i felt was mild amusement watching you getting assblasted when that other tard used your exact argument and made you grind to a halt. kek
>>16792989Seethe, tranny
>>16792841>On a base level, any situation (or at least your perception of one) simply is what it is. You can't conceive of it being simultaneously what it isn't. ...>You may then come up with a framework to describe situations. Non-contradiction would be a part of that framework's meta, corresponding to the aforementioned state of affairsThe mind works that way but it doesn't mean some "real world" out there works that way. Isn't Nietzsche just criticizing the Logos take, which treats logical laws as actively organizing some objective reality?
>>16792961Read the sentence after that.
>>16793125>Read the sentence after that.I did but it's total word salad and also fundamentally irrelevant.
>>16791948>>the human mind isn't part of natureHe isn't saying this, dumbass. He is stating that math (like all things concocted by the human mind) is strictly a biological phenomenon in nature. Therefore, math being used to represent a "true" reality outside of our biological capabilities is nonsense.
>>16793130>He is stating that math (like all things concocted by the human mind) is strictly a biological phenomenon in natureYou need to be literally insane to think he's stating anything like this or that he ever thought in these gay jewish terms.
>>16792977>who think logic is optionalThe fact you believe this fails to vindicate Nietzsche is funny.
>The fact you believe this fails to vindicate Nietzsche is funny.
>>16793132You are literally a gay and insane jew if you think Nietzsche's weltanschauung means anything else besides the primacy of life itself.
>Nietzsche's weltanschauung means math is biological and other psychotic materialist drivel
what would he say if i beat him badly breaking nmultiple bones and serious organ damage and internal bleeding possibly irreparable damage to his different structures
>what would nietzsche say if i chimped out ooga booga bix nood
>>16793128Thanks for your input, moron.
>>16793138Of course logic is not optional when retarded idealists come up with insane plans that lead to the deaths of millions using "logic" as their basis. The 'will to power' doctrine holds firm in the face of these material realities. >>16793143>Nietzsche is le materialistHe's literally not lol. Also, not an argument.
>the law of the extruded middle is an assumption because of the lawyer's paradox >thanks for the inpoot, morans!!!
>oy vey the idealists are planning to shoah me again which proves that logic isn't real>will to power means materialism is true by the way
>>16793138>>16793143>>16793153This is some bitch shit. You should get fucked violently in the mouth by 500 Nietzscheans while you meditate on "The Gay Science" during that time.
>ooga booga bix noods bitch shit fucked violently gay witeboi science
This thread is going exactly as >>16792989 said. lol.
This post was right, ya'll >>16792989. Exactly as this other poster predicted.
>>16792989So true lol. Funny how "logic" fans can't use their fake logic to prove us wrong.
>>16792989>>16793162>>16793164>>16793166Samefag schizo
>>16793153>In logic, the law of excluded middle or the principle of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true.However, they are statements are neither true nor false, such as demonstrated in the Liar's paradox. Is this so hard to understand, idiot-kun?
>>16793192>ooga booga bix noods! true or false?>a-ha! see? the LEM is just an assumption!Your "thinking" involves several layers of retardation, but your most basic error is thinking that the framework for a given logic is an "assumption" just because it isn't regarded as something to prove. This is simply a category error. If I asked you what external state of affairs it's an assumption about, you would shit out some word salad and never provide a cogent answer.
Everyone here is retarded
>>16793208>just because it isn't regarded as something to proveThis is precisely what a "assumption" is, as matter of fact. Very entertaining, however. Keep up the comedy.
>>16792659Mindbroken.Logic doesn't exist though. You can't even prove it is valid in itself because you have no empirical means of demonstrating its internal validity.
Has no one here heard of quantum mechanics? In quantum mechanics, things can both be and not be at the same time. Von Neumann even tried to develop a new logic for quantum mechanics.
>>16793234>This is precisely what a "assumption" isWhat external state of affairs is the "assumption" of bivalence about?
>>16793245>In quantum mechanics, things can both be and not be at the same timeWhich QM textbook did you learn this from?
>>16793248Look up superpositions. It's covered in any textbook.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_superposition
>>16793257You obviously didn't read that article. Try to do so now. When you're done, quote the part that says superpositions implies the same statement is simultaneously true and false.
>>16792030>what if 1+1 = 3?>but what if there was a universe where this was true?the whole point is that there is no such universe
>>16793234>This is precisely what a "assumption" is, as matter of fact. Very entertaining, however. Keep up the comedy.
>>16793267If you knew anything at all about quantum mechanics you wouldn't ask this lmao.
>be logic>"invented" in a very vague sense thousands of years ago by some gay philosophers>follows our intuitive understanding of what arguments make sense>skip until the 20th century>maths has developed in many different ways because it was created to solve real life physical problems>slowly people want ti formalize it and find out if you can base everything on a few axioms>devise a series if axioms that make sense and encapsulate how maths work>skip to 2025>incels on /sci/ still think logic comes from thin air and it wasn't an empirically justified creation
>>16793464>If you knew anything at all about quantum mechanics you wouldn't ask this lmao.Why jump through the hoop of QM, retard? Just say math disproves logic because a random variable implies "things can both be and not be at the same time". Also note that you did not provide any relevant quote from that article you obviously didn't read.
>>16793474>mentally ill retard doesn't understand what the words "empirically" and "justified" actually mean
>>16793499physics dictated the way mathematics developedmathematics dictated the way the foundational axioms of logic developedyou are a retard
>>16793529I don't care about your slop "arguments". If logic is "empirically justified", what's your "empirical" test for logic?
>>16793531it works when applied in the real world
why do you fags keep replying to obvious off-topic bait?
>>16793496>he thinks quantum mechanics is random variablesBruh. Just stop. This is getting real cringe
>>16793560I knew even such a basic point would go over your head. You're quite literally 80 IQ.
>>16793549>it works when ...I don't care about your slop "arguments". If logic is "empirically justified", what's your "empirical" test for logic?There will be no concrete answer to this question. You have no idea how to actually test it but you're also too fucking dumb to reflect on the obvious reason why.
>>16791891This. I'm a Platonist and I don't believe that the realm of the forms is "imaginary" the whole point is that its real. Aristotle was the one who said that the form of a thing was just the forms of objects.
>>16793685>claims to be Platonist>doesnt understand that "imaginary" and the platonic realm are the same thing, he just doesnt understand that the universe itself is mental so the "imaginary" is just as real as the material realm, more so in fact as it is the substrate of the material realm which is an illusory skin (hologram)holy shit you are a pseud stfu
>>16793762I'm speaking colloquially you lunatic, imaginary in this context means "fake" not "concerning the imagination/mind"
>>16793574something being empirically justified literally means it works in the real worldkys spammer faggot
>>16793789why am I a lunatic fag?
>>16793833>i have no idea how to test my theory>i will deflect repeatedly from coming up with any kind of experiment to test it>i will simply continue to assert it's empirically justified70 IQ brown flood on this board.
>>16791770There are straight lines in nature. Pic related
>>16793884Have you heard of microscopes?
>>16793884here's your "straight" lines, bro
>>16793899No, I trust my eyes way more. >>16793900Computer generated garbage.
>>16791770Stuntman Hit By Truck; Shown His Future And The Purpose Of Life During Shocking (NDE)https://youtu.be/iZWYZXuPl60
>>16793883here's a simple experiment>solve any physical problem using maths>logic axioms are used to prove said maths>therefore logic axioms have an empirical proof in the real world
>>16793906Every step in your "reasoning" is a literal nonsequitur and the post as a whole is a nonsequitur to the one you replied to. You sound like a hopeless psychiatric patient trying to simulate some superficial semblance of rationality.
>>16793952What empirical evidence do you have that my post is a non sequitur? and that I'm a psychiatric patient? you're getting sloppy
@16793961>obsessed samefag exposed himself
>>16793900it is impossible for nature to do anything in a straight line because everything is always in motion
>>16793968sorry this >>16793968 was meant for this retard >>16793901
>>16793968>everything is always in motionMy sense of self is same and constant.
>>16794083>My sense of self is same and constantMy sense of Santa is same and constant.
>>16794091Please accept this reddit gold kind stranger
>>16794083>my senseis this material or form?
>>16794105form
>>16794098>redditor gets made realizing his "sense of self" is undefinable pure fiction>starts projecting
Imagine taking nigtszche seriously
>>16791770>be Nietzsche >pay carpenter 100 francs to install a door>new door isn’t plumb and won’t close>’Monsieur Nietzsche, can you prove without assumptions the door isnt square?’>carpenter offers a refund but it is a negative refund, costing a further 200 francs>stare at crooked door and empty coin purse euphoric in knowledge that math is based on unfounded assumptions
>>16794142>be you>literally 70 IQ>be living in Current Year - 200>know nothing about logic (same as now, but honest)>know nothing about math (same as now. but honest)>pay carpenter 100 francs to install a door>new door isn’t plumb and won’t close>’Monsieur Retarde, can you prove without assumptions the door isnt square?’>carpenter offers a refund but it is a negative refund, costing a further 200 francs>stare at crooked door and empty coin purse blissful ignorance because Amuricoon public school didn't teach him fancy words like "logic" and "math" and "proof"
>>16794144The joke is that it’s well known in Nietzsche scholarship that he was absolutely terrible at math. He almost failed out of gymnasium he was so bad at math. And yet in the OP quote he is espousing a philosophy of mathematics when he probably couldn’t prove basic geometry. He was only allowed to stay in gymnasium because he was so good with languages, religion, and literary subjects.
>>16794288There is no joke. You're just retarded and your post shows it.
>>16794291Must be a good life, writing one sentence completely orthogonal to the previous and just calling people retards online
>>16794299But how does it compare to the life writing several sentences completely orthogonal to the point of the thread and being called a retard online, mathematically speaking?
>>16794318This thread doesn't have a point so I don't know what you're talking about, my nigga
>>16791781Harris gives up too soon. When you electrolyse water the gases are humid and under slightly different pressures, and there can be side reactions. If you dry the gases the weights are around 16:1 so if we had a unit mass convention the water formula unit would be ho16 and the hidden assumptions about the naturally occurring isotope ratios would be exposed.
>>16794334That post didn't have a point, either.
>>16794318> how does it compare to the life writing several sentences completelyWhat does this even mean? How does “it compare to the life”? What sort of jeet grammar is this?Since you’re clearly some kind of logic genius who is familiar with even the most obscure forms of logic, it should be trivial for you to post a hand drawn picture of a tableaux method proof to show that excluded middle cannot be proven for a three value paraconsistent logic such as Pierce’s. Just modify classical tableaux with a third value, L, and modify the branching accordingly. Please show your hands, too.
>Since you’re clearly some kind of logic genius who is familiar with even the most obscure forms of logic, it should be trivial for you to post a hand drawn picture of a tableaux method proof to show that excluded middle cannot be proven for a three value paraconsistent logic such as Pierce’s. Just modify classical tableaux with a third value, L, and modify the branching accordingly. Please show your hands, too.
>>16794508>excluded middle>proven>three value paraconsistent logicYou used a free-tier LLM to generate this post, didn't you, retard?
>>16794527Yeah you’ve just shown everybody with a basic understanding of the history of intuitionism and logic that you don’t know shit about this topic and are speaking out of your ass. Intuitionistic logic and paraconsistent logics have similar motivations. They really aren’t that obscure. It’s funny you bring up LLMs. let me guess: you tried to get an LLM to solve this but weren’t sure if the result was an hallucination and didn’t want to embarrass yourself? You can find standard proofs of the failure of excluded middle in Pierce’s three value logic with a simple Google search. Tableaux is trickier to find. The dataset of tableaux exemplars that an LLM can be trained on for this is probably very slim and the formatting and diagrams varies between text books and papers so you were probably right to think it would hallucinate an answer. That’s why I’m asking you for a hand written tableaux proof that excluded middle is not a tautology in Pierce’s three value paraconsistent logic. It’s a perfect filter for frauds like you. Im not surprised you accuse the other person of what you yourself are guilty of.
>>16794571>excluded middle>proven>three value paraconsistent logic
>>16794571Hmm. It looks like this time I was being the retard. I can see now why your request does make sense, even though talking about the LEM seems completely moot in a logic that introduces a value that's neither true nor false.The only problem is that nowhere in our exchange (or in this thread) did I claim to be an expert on logic or try to make any strong statements about it, except for ridiculing you after you started sperging out about this specific thing.
>>16794592No, you just went around calling people retards when it’s clear you don’t know anything about this subject yourself.
>>16794665>you just went around calling people retards when it’s clear you don’t know anything about this subject yourself.>this subject"This subject" being what, retard? This thread is about how abstract, self-contained systems like propositional logic relate to reality. Climbing even higher up the tree of pure abstractions, to the meta level where a niche logic system itself becomes an object to logick about, tells me absolutely nothing about the actual subject of this thread. Or, if anything, it demonstrates Nietzsche's point about how disconnected your sort is from reality.
>>16794665Protip: He's a genuine retard who's been shitting up this board for months. You can find him in any free will or philosophy related thread, aggressively spamming the same few insults (biobot, subhuman, etc). You can recognize him by the hyperaggressive, bad-faith tone. Just ignore or troll him.
>>16794691>being this assblastedI hope it was something I did.
>>16791895>>16791929
>>16793968>a straight line can't be both straight & in motion*yawn*
>>16791886>>16791891imagine blabbering about this shit without ever having read the Timaeus, or the numerous sections across platos work that attests that the physical world is structured and built upon the realm of forms. mathematics was literally an offshoot of numerology and the alchemist-magic tradition, which sought to master divine forces for human power. crazy i know, but only for STEMlords who dont study intellectual history and philosophy.
>>16794691I wonder why he hasn't been banned or had his threads purged.maybe this retard is a janny or mod?
>>16794721this is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on this board. congrats
>>16791963i know quantum mechanics physisists exist, i know this because i am a kinetic energy physicist.try harder sweetie
>>16793172Most threads are kept alive by a samefag schizo.If you state a position it is inevitable some one will argue the opposite, but they often leave after a few minutes. Far better to cut out the middleman and just argue with yourself. Furthermore good faith discussions are so rare they may as well not exist, So its just better to be a retard. If you say something sensible and rational no one will agree with you. Its better just to randomly insult posters with retarded insults to provoke a rage reply and therefore bump the thread..tt. Have kept retarded threads that I created alive for months by having retarded arguments with myself, and by randomly insulting posters with retarded insults.Also: You are a fucking retard.
>>16791777>He is rightThe what is the difference between the top gram of wheat flour and the bottom gram of wheat flour in the kilogram bag of wheat flour if they aren't equal and can't be treated as such in a recipe that calls on flour?
>>16793551stfu bitch
>>16794805No one cares about what your favorite pedo wrote 2500 years ago.
>>16794899you have to argue with yourself because everyone on this board is too stupid to make any poignant counterpoints. You may as well raise them crush them yourself to "save time" as you said
>>16794899>>16794832>>16794691>samefag schizo
