User Tag List

First 394748495051 Last

Results 481 to 490 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #481
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    The 2+2=5 thing doesn't work for this discussion because whether or not it's "true" is entirely dependent upon how we've defined it ahead of time. We've created our own arbitrary system where 2+2=4 by definition, so this is one thing we are absolutely certain of--but only because it's a result of our own theoretical constructs.

    If I name my dog Rover, then I'm absolutely certain that his name is Rover, but only because I predefined the system that way. This doesn't really apply to our epistemology discussion here.

    Saying that we can't know that 2+2=4 is like saying that we don't know if the word "and" really has three letters. We do know that because we decided what a letter is and what having three of them means.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  2. #482
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    I think there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain; "2+2=4", "a square has 4 sides", and, "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)".
    Two things:

    1) All of the things you mentioned are abstract concepts. They aren't directly related to anything concrete in reality.

    2) Specifically,
    a) "2+2 = 4" is based upon axioms, and we have to believe those axioms are true. There is still a degree of uncertainty in the axioms (although for 2+2 = 4 the degree of uncertainty is about as small as it gets).

    b) "4 sides" is part of the definition of what a "square" is. It is true that things have the properties that we define them as having, but that is pointless since we arbitrarily gave them these properties to begin with.

    c) "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)" is a property of formal logic, and we are assuming that logic can reach conclusions in a meaningful way.

    Quote Originally Posted by DigitalMethod
    But you can never prove that. More importantly, there is no evidence that that is true. You can always ask "what if." You can ask questions about consciousness however you will be forever stuck in consciousness. There is no way to observe anything outside of consciousness. Therefore it is largely irrelevant to question consciousness I would say.
    You certainly could prove that 2 + 2 = 5 if you changed the axioms used to reach that conclusion. Evidence is irrelevant when discussing pure mathematics, because evidence is an inferior method of reaching conclusions. Therefore pure mathematicians always ignore evidence in favor of formal logic.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #483
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Two things:

    1) All of the things you mentioned are abstract concepts. They aren't directly related to anything concrete in reality.
    Even if true, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Recall that my claim was "there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain".

    2) Specifically,
    a) "2+2 = 4" is based upon axioms, and we have to believe those axioms are true. There is still a degree of uncertainty in the axioms (although for 2+2 = 4 the degree of uncertainty is about as small as it gets).
    Which "axioms" are being referred to? As far as I am aware, the value of the addition function necessarily is 4.

    b) "4 sides" is part of the definition of what a "square" is. It is true that things have the properties that we define them as having, but that is pointless since we arbitrarily gave them these properties to begin with.
    Unfortunately, I do not fully understand this objection. Perhaps it ought to be asked whether, if a square, by definition, has four sides, this claim is pertinent. The proposition "A square has 4 sides" remains necessarily true; "A square has 5 sides" is, of course, necessarily false ( as we might tell a child learning elementary mathematics).

    c) "given p&q, one can infer p (via simplification)" is a property of formal logic, and we are assuming that logic can reach conclusions in a meaningful way.
    I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". Simplification is a valid rule of inference in propositional logic; p can always be inferred from p&q, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.

  4. #484
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Anja View Post
    Governor Blagojovich says, "If you can't prove it, it didn't happen." See how good that works?
    He didn't really get fired, of course.
    (You just think he did.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  5. #485
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    Even if true, I'm not sure how this is relevant. Recall that my claim was "there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain".
    The examples are true but irrelevant. They are theoretically true, but they are entirely human constructs. You are basically saying that we can absolutely know something is true as long as it is in a system that we created entirely ourselves.

    You do have an exception (sort of), but there was no actual discovery involved and the examples are not concrete in any way. My point is that one can never be absolutely certain of anything in reality.

    Which "axioms" are being referred to? As far as I am aware, the value of the addition function necessarily is 4.
    Every field of mathematics operates under axioms, even arithmetic. A couple of the most basic ones are
    1) x = x
    2) Given a = a and b = b then a + b = a + b

    These axioms are both need to conclude 2 + 2 = 4. (I can't recall all of the axioms for arithmetic, but) there is also an axiom assuming that the operation addition exists.

    Now these ideas may seem so basic that they don't seem like assumptions at all, but ideas which must be true. Well that is exactly the criteria for a good axiom.
    I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". Simplification is a valid rule of inference in propositional logic; p can always be inferred from p&q, and there is no doubt whatsoever that this is the case.
    You are essentially saying the same thing that I am about your proposition. Your proposition is a property of logic. However to use logic one must assume that logic exists and can draw meaningful conclusions.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  6. #486
    Senior Member Anja's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    2,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    He didn't really get fired, of course.
    (You just think he did.)
    "No ray of sunshine is ever lost, but the green which it awakes into existence needs time to sprout, and it is not always granted to the sower to see the harvest. All work that is worth anything is done in faith." - Albert Schweitzer

  7. #487
    Senior Member Helios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    273

    Default

    The examples are true but irrelevant. They are theoretically true, but they are entirely human constructs. You are basically saying that we can absolutely know something is true as long as it is in a system that we created entirely ourselves.
    Once again, my claim is: "there are some examples of propositions we can know to be true for certain". This was in response to a claim to the contrary; I did not specify of what nature these propositions are. Your task is to refute the claim that the examples adduced can be known for certain. Incidentally, all of my propositions are certain even without the existence of humans to conceive of them; 2+2=4 is certainly true irrespective of any human's existence.


    Now these ideas may seem so basic that they don't seem like assumptions at all, but ideas which must be true. Well that is exactly the criteria for a good axiom.
    Precisely; the axioms you cite must be true, and, consequently, 2+2=4 must also be true.


    You are essentially saying the same thing that I am about your proposition. Your proposition is a property of logic. However to use logic one must assume that logic exists and can draw meaningful conclusions.
    I can only repeat the foregoing: "I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". I am requesting, implicitly, that you explain what is meant by these statements.

  8. #488
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    71

    Default

    I thought it appropriate to at least mention that I withdrew myself from the conversation out of exhaustion. Hopefully I'll be able to gather myself and dive back in a few pages from now! Are we now arguing about the possibility of logical certainty/self-evident truths? Are we trying to refute "There are no married bachelors"?

    (I really haven't read the thread, so I'm probably wrong.)

    Also, @mycroft, sense experience = true by definition? Sure. Nice.

    @Costrin, I'm worn out. I'll try to come back to the debate at some point. However, for now, I'd just like to say that you rather own at this.

  9. #489
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    I thought it appropriate to at least mention that I withdrew myself from the conversation out of exhaustion. Hopefully I'll be able to gather myself and dive back in a few pages from now! Are we now arguing about the possibility of logical certainty/self-evident truths? Are we trying to refute "There are no married bachelors"?
    I'd rather not. I see it as pretty pointless. I apologize to the thread for bringing it up in the first place.

    @Costrin, I'm worn out. I'll try to come back to the debate at some point. However, for now, I'd just like to say that you rather own at this.
    Why thank you.

  10. #490
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Helios View Post
    Precisely; the axioms you cite must be true, and, consequently, 2+2=4 must also be true.
    No we cannot be sure that "2+2=4" is true. It only seems this way. In fact "2+2=4" is based upon assumptions and in fact it can be shown that 2+2 does not always equal 4. For example in mod 3 arithmetic 2+2=1 and in mod 4 arithmetic 2+2=0.

    I can only repeat the foregoing: "I've no idea what a "property of formal logic" is, or what is meant by "reach conclusions in a meaningful way". I am requesting, implicitly, that you explain what is meant by these statements.
    If you haven't studied formal logic, then I'm not sure if I can explain it to you in a way that you will accept. This is my simplest attempt: There is more than one way to reason. Formal logic is one way to do so. When using any type of reasoning we assume that our method is valid in reaching useful or meaningful conclusions.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO