Logic

[JohnnyReb]

<<<< Objective - expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

There are many things one can be completely objective about, but by definition, it won't be any of the important things in life. >>

Because...?

That's a bad habit of you: making statements without even bothering to give your reasoning>>

If I give no reason, it is safe to assume that I am expressing personal opinion, which is subjective. However, in this case I cited the reason being the definition of objective. The basic nature of being human will make this impossible when it is really close to home. (A subjective premise).

Remember, I make no claim to observing pure logic, and in fact consider it an impossibility to do so. Even if one did suceed, he would have a very incomplete understanding of God, the universe, and everything. Why even try. Accept that logic is a great tool, but much of what's "out there" is beyond the ability of logic to determine. You can't hunt cape buffalo with a .22.

John

John

 

[JohnnyReb]

are you saying equivalent doesn't mean equal?

Let me say that equal doesn't have to mean identical; which is the word I should have used.

Example of my corrected statement:

2 + 2 = 4

Both sides of the = have the same value, but they are not identical.


How about this? Is...

_____
.9999 = 1



John

 

[andaval]

Foraying into unrelated mathematics here, I think the correct answer is yes, .9 repeating = 1. Think about it this way -- what is the difference between .99999... and 1? The difference is .000000..... and you never get to the 1, so the difference is 0. Anyway, back from the brainteaser, you have made claims that it is obivious and self-evident that all men are created equal. In a thread you started, complaining about how someone in private mail takes logic as whatever they want to believe in, you have presented zero logical argument why this is true, even though other posters have shown they do not believe it to be obvious or self-evident, at the same time claiming that equivalent does not mean equal. Please show me some logical reasoning (not more subjective premises) that supports these claims so that I don't deduce that two very different people with the same handle are posting in this thread just to perplex me.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Please show me some logical reasoning (not more subjective premises) that supports these claims so that I don't deduce that two very different people with the same handle are posting in this thread just to perplex me.

Sorry, but I brought up that premise as something that I believed but could not logically demonstrate. It was in answer to a question.

My point in this thread isn't to promote logic, but rather to point out my experience with people who do claim logic as their only basis for opinion, but don't actually understand logical analysis

 

[JohnnyReb]

Foraying into unrelated mathematics here, I think the correct answer is yes, .9 repeating = 1. Think about it this way -- what is the difference between .99999... and 1? The difference is .000000..... and you never get to the 1, so the difference is 0

Actually not quite unrelated. The answer to the question (which you got basically right) has to do with some very specific defintions. Any two numbers are different is there is some number between them (usually expressed a bit differently). Since there is no number between .9999 (repeating) and 1 then the two are equal. This relates to the guys attempting to disprove the unsupported premise that all men are created equal by a tight definition of equal.

This is to demonstrate the need to define terms. I have read a number of post here on ATOT where the parties were not actually disagreeing, but using words differently.


John

 

[andaval]

Ok, giving up on expecting a logical answer about this, can you at least explain in any fashion why you think all men (and do you mean people?) are created equal? If it is indeed obvious, there should be a better reason/explanation than "it is obvious." If you really think all people are equal, I bet W doesn't want you as a bodyguard, he wants someone who will take a bullet...

 

[linuxboy]

Passing through an empty field, I met a wandering man. "Oh traveler, what brings you here?" I asked. "Through what act of God of man do you wander so about like a long-lost brother seeking. "

"Ah friend, I search for truth. I search for knowledge, I search for absolute objectivity. I seek to be logic incarnate. I see those around me and see they are flawed. The world around me is in disarray. Nobody understands me and I don't even understand myself but I will not give this up. I wander in field after field looking for treasure in the tall grasses but I only find the stings of insects and the cuts from weeds. Stinging nettles pierce my flesh but I do not give up. I strive forward in field after field knowing that if I do this, then surely, no matter what the consequences, I will finally know what everyone else didn't. After all, it's only logical."

"I heard these words uttered by a strange man and I grew sad. That is not logic my friend, that is folly. That is not genuine seeking, traveler, that is madness. You want something that will kill you. You want something that is not who you are. Do you not see these birds who wander in the bushes and eat the seeds falling from the branch? Do you not see these ants crawling, working to survive. Do you not see them here? They are. This world and what is in it is not an outside something one gathers through inferential processes, themselves dependent on self-aggrandizing judgments. This world is us. We have the world inside of us. You separate and divide and claim knowledge with your immoral logic and you are then safe from this world until one day it will want to enter again and will do so with a vengeance. That is what objectivity does. This is madness and folly."

My interlocutor heard this and grew pensive. "But wait, "he said, "this is not what I mean at all. I never said those words. My utterances were brief and enigmatic. I see your interpretation as pulling straws from thin air. How did you arrive at your conclusion. Explain them to me, I must have a method !!!"

I heard these words and I grew sad again, flickering lights of hope growing dimmer. "Ah, weary traveler you search for treasure with a fine comb but do not see it. You look but miss it. Here is your treasure." I got on my knees and began digging with my hands. I dug and shoveled and scooped and scraped until the flesh wore off and the blood flowed without reservation. Frenzied by madness, I dug and hit the treasure. I took it out and yelled ?HERE IS THE TREASURE. IT IS IN EVERY FIELD, IN EVERY STREAM, ALL AROUND YOU?.

My now stranger backed away slowly frightened and puzzled by the behavior of a madman. Turning around, he broke into a gallop and ran with the wind to the other fields in the lowlands. I have never seen him again and do not know what became of him. My hands healed and I went home with my treasure and the knowledge of every treasure in every field that through no effect I had come to know. My friend, I think, is still looking, is still in pain from the travels, and still wishes to dig his up his own treasure but with a different approach. You see, good reader, he doesn?t want to get his hands dirty (or bloody).

Cheers !

 

[killface]

linuxboy - so basically that tells us logic is supposed to be the "easy" way and religion is the hard way to find what we're looking for?
I tend to believe it's the other way around. Holy books are used as "life's instruction manuals" by too many people. In science and logic there are so many unanswered questions. When you're not living as part of "God's plan" you have to find your own meaning for your life, which can be a very scary thing.

 

[linuxboy]

linuxboy - so basically that tells us logic is supposed to be the "easy" way and religion is the hard way to find what we're looking for?

The what now? I suppose anything I write could mean anything. I never made the claim that religion is hard or logic easy. Go deeper.

I tend to believe it's the other way around. Holy books are used as "life's instruction manuals" by too many people. In science and logic there are so many unanswered questions. When you're not living as part of "God's plan" you have to find your own meaning for your life, which can be a very scary thing.

Well sure it's scary. How did you gather I was talking about religions? I was just being illogical with a completely random story about two interesting people written from first-person POV. I was talking about logic though... I guess you have to be a part of the usual Moonbeam-linuxboy-palek-petrek-skylark-Athanasius-Elledan-bunch of other people chain to get more out of it than you did. You make an interesting point, one I could agree with.

well Cheers !

 

[JohnnyReb]

Ok, giving up on expecting a logical answer about this, can you at least explain in any fashion why you think all men (and do you mean people?) are created equal? If it is indeed obvious, there should be a better reason/explanation than "it is obvious." If you really think all people are equal, I bet W doesn't want you as a bodyguard, he wants someone who will take a bullet...

Equality of Man (i.e. mankind) is a Christian idea. I accept it because it seems to make sense (Elledan would call it logical).

All men are equal before God (the creator in my premise), and therefore deserving of equal rights before governments; which are themselves instituted by God. Since this equality transcends governments, it is true even if a particular state denies it. This is the basis for inalienable rights, i.e. rights granted by God, and is the basis for Law in the US (at least ideally).

Thomas Jefferson found this to be "Self-evident", and I tend to agree.


John

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

<< Foraying into unrelated mathematics here, I think the correct answer is yes, .9 repeating = 1. Think about it this way -- what is the difference between .99999... and 1? The difference is .000000..... and you never get to the 1, so the difference is 0. >>



I disagree. .9999 not equal to 1.0000. There is a .0001 difference. If you extend the repeating series out to infinity, the value approaches 1 but never reaches it and hence is always .99999(repeat) < 1 always.



<< Actually not quite unrelated. The answer to the question (which you got basically right) has to do with some very specific defintions. Any two numbers are different is there is some number between them (usually expressed a bit differently). Since there is no number between .9999 (repeating) and 1 then the two are equal. This relates to the guys attempting to disprove the unsupported premise that all men are created equal by a tight definition of equal.
>>



You assume that the number system is continuous. It isn't. It's discrete, we approximated continuous scales by adding decimal places to our integers. This smallest possible interval between to number is .000(repeat)0001. or 1/infinity.

so 1 - .9999(repeated infinite decimal places) = 1/infinity

 

[andaval]

<< Thomas Jefferson found this to be "Self-evident", and I tend to agree. >>



Obviously he didn't find it too self-evident, because he owned slaves, and he didn't even free any that weren't his blood relatives at his death. If he believed that "all men were created equal under God," wouldn't that be a crime against God to OWN SLAVES, which seems like it would be a pretty big no-no to me for any kind of theist.

Anyway your definition of equal is "deserving equal rights" ?

 

[SinNisTeR]

<<

<< You still don't get it, do you? IMHO, the whole discussion was a total waste of time, because you failed to understand what I was trying to make clear. >>



LOL... I guess we now know who the other party of the IM discussion was!

Joe >>



LMAO!

 

[b0mbrman]

<<

<<

<< You still don't get it, do you? IMHO, the whole discussion was a total waste of time, because you failed to understand what I was trying to make clear. >>


LOL... I guess we now know who the other party of the IM discussion was!
Joe >>


LMAO! >>

 

[JohnnyReb]

so 1 - .9999(repeated infinite decimal places) = 1/infinity

LOL! That's great. However your proof falls apart since 1/infinity = 0

 

[JohnnyReb]

Obviously he didn't find it too self-evident, because he owned slaves, and he didn't even free any that weren't his blood relatives at his death. If he believed that "all men were created equal under God," wouldn't that be a crime against God to OWN SLAVES, which seems like it would be a pretty big no-no to me for any kind of theist.

And here is the distinction between ideals and practical application (I assume that your facts are correct).

John

 

[Moonbeam]

I would say that logic is good for talking about and shaping the known. I don't think you can arrive at truth that way though. I think that involves things that these words point to, the dropping of a veil, inspiration, insight, sudden realization, the colapse of opposites via transcendent principle. I don't think truth is something that fits in words, it's a state or quality of perception, the harvest of a hidden higher capacity.

 

[lebe0024]

Q. Why is logic the basis for all understanding?
A. Because that's the logical thing to do.

Don't take it personally, it's just a joke.

 

[lebe0024]

<< 1/infinity = 0 >>



You're the math guy, so you're probably right, but isn't this correct:

The limit of 1/x as x approaches +inifinity is 0. (too hard to type out in symbolic form.)

 

[BooneRebel]

<---came here looking for a discussion on logic. Found a discussion on theology instead. Going away now...

 

[andaval]

If you can't arrive at truth through logic, then how do you get there? I think half the threads on OT demonstrate the failure of the public educational system.

 

[linuxboy]

If you can't arrive at truth through logic, then how do you get there?

What exactly is truth? If it is simply a semantic value of "true" then logic certainly provides us with that. If there's something more to it than that, then logic is somehow limited and we are stuck in looking for a system we can follow again to "get somewhere". What if the truth is really not the "there" but the "getting there"?

Cheers !

 

[JohnnyReb]

The limit of 1/x as x approaches +inifinity is 0. (too hard to type out in symbolic form.)

You are absolutley correct. The static number 1/infinity is not the same as the line of the form 1/x, which does rapidly move toward 0 as x approaches +infinity.

Where this applies to logic (if anyone is still out there) is that defining terms is vital to any discussion that purposes to be logical.



Two numbers x and y are equal if there exist no number z where x<z<y or x>z>y.

if x=.99999999 (repeating 9's forever)
and y=1
then there exist no z, such that x<z<y because for every z<y, z<x.




This is the same for 1/infinity=0

If x=1/infinity
and y=0
does there exist any z where x>z>y

for any value of z, there exist a value of x where x<z


These logical statements only make sense if you everyone understands the terms being used.

 

[amnesiac]

I like cheese.

 

[JohnnyReb]

If you can't arrive at truth through logic, then how do you get there? I think half the threads on OT demonstrate the failure of the public educational system.

You can certainly arrive at truth thru logic, if your premises are correct. There is a beginning point where you have to assume (accept as true) something.

Problem is, you can't arrive at all truth thru logic because there are so many things that we do not know with certainty.

Logic is a subset of Reason.

John