tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2466193528672131509..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: A Question of LogicRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-83290437257068826542007-04-13T17:21:00.000-04:002007-04-13T17:21:00.000-04:00Did my eyes deceive me? Did Touchstone's position...Did my eyes deceive me? Did Touchstone's position on all this lead to the logical argument which proved that he is a maroon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21727636554001863782007-04-13T16:51:00.000-04:002007-04-13T16:51:00.000-04:00Touchstone,Answer the arguments.Thanks,AnonymousTouchstone,<BR/><BR/>Answer the arguments.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>AnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66766671970073111102007-04-13T13:44:00.000-04:002007-04-13T13:44:00.000-04:00Paul,Does "necessity" require only elimination of ...Paul,<BR/><BR/>Does "necessity" require only elimination of *known* or *actual* problems, or rather the elimination of *potential* problems.<BR/><BR/>If you can answer that, then we can make sense of what you're advancing above.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19860497513925051032007-04-13T13:30:00.000-04:002007-04-13T13:30:00.000-04:00Oh, and let me add, Touchstone that reality might ...Oh, and let me add, Touchstone that reality might *not* be one where the LNC holds at {insert whatever level}. So, can this portion of reality *not* be it's negation at the same time?<BR/><BR/>If it can, then LNC *can* hold there. If it *can't* hold there, then LNC does.<BR/><BR/>The more Touchstone tries to hammer the LNC, the more it hammers him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-35861755466561486232007-04-13T13:23:00.000-04:002007-04-13T13:23:00.000-04:00T-stone doesn't quite get it.He says he's not goin...T-stone doesn't quite get it.<BR/><BR/>He says he's not going to refute the principle of explosion,a nd it may be valid.<BR/><BR/>Okay, then, if so, here's the refutation of his position:<BR/><BR/>Let A = Something exists and does not exist in the same sense, time, and relationhsip. Let B = Touchstone is a maroon.<BR/><BR/>A<BR/><BR/>A v B<BR/><BR/>~A <BR/><BR/>:.B<BR/><BR/>Or, let B = evolution is false.<BR/><BR/>Or, let B = touchstone is jealous of Peter.<BR/><BR/>ANYTHING.<BR/><BR/>If Touchstone doesn't refute explosion, then he's lost.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, Touchstone thinks that *saying* something is possible implies that it *is* possible.<BR/><BR/>So, no, toucstone, you *must* demonstrate that those are actual contradictions. You'll excuse of if we don't accept your mere *assertion* that they *could* be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45408449043762878992007-04-13T01:32:00.000-04:002007-04-13T01:32:00.000-04:00Touchstone:Again, I have to point out, my argument...Touchstone:<BR/><BR/>Again, I have to point out, my argument <I>is not equivalent to TAG</I>. There are portions that are similar, but surely you are aware that TAG starts with the presupposition that God exists and that His Scriptures must be presupposed before we even begin to do anything.<BR/><BR/>My argument did not start with God or the Scriptures here. It started with "I perceive, therefore I am." In point of fact, I didn't quote <I>ANY</I> Scripture at all to establish my argument. The only Scripture reference I put in there was at the <I>end</I> of the argument, and then just to show that what I had argued fit with Romans 1:20; I didn't say, "Romans 1:20 is true, therefore this argument." I said, "This argument, and hey it happens to fit Romans 1:20 too."<BR/><BR/>Strict TAGists would be stringing me up for doing this.<BR/><BR/>I'm becoming more doubtful that you even read what I originally put forth. I think you started to read it, figured "CalvinDude's just gonna promote TAG again", and then put forth your stock response against TAG without ever realizing what my actual argument was. This is why you probably originally thought your Quantum argument would work; because you figured I was starting with Scriptures being presupposed true rather than starting with the existence of an observer.<BR/><BR/>The rest of what you've written has been CYA in the hopes you didn't look like an idiot for missing the entirety of my argument in the first place, and if you had to jettison logical thought in the process SO BE IT!<BR/><BR/>Now you seek refuge in claiming:<BR/>---<BR/>So, here's the thing; the points I'm raising are potentialities, rather than necessities.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>But these "potentialities" <I>aren't</I> potential in any rational sense. When you have to appeal to mystical Buddhism you're no longer rational. Buddhists are at least honest enough to state plainly that they aren't even <I>trying</I> to be rational, whereas you on the other hand take their irrational viewpoint and try to cram it into a rational viewpoint and then claim "contradiction."<BR/><BR/>Of course, in the irrational worldview <I>it doesn't matter if there's a contradiction!</I> Your "potentialities" embrace the irrational, so under such rules there's no reason my argument needs to be rational in the first place, so <I>it doesn't matter</I> if my worldview "contradicts" your irrational viewpoint. The only reason it would matter is if <I>my view</I> was right, and if my view is right your view isn't <I>possible</I>, let alone "potential."<BR/><BR/>Again, you are only proving that you're extremely adept at intellectual suicide.<BR/><BR/>T-Stone claims:<BR/>---<BR/>CalvinDude, via Bahnsen et al, is forwarding something quite extraordinary: what is held as *necessary* proof for the existence of God.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>But 1) I haven't seen Bahnsen forward this argument (but then I haven't read much of Bahnsen); and 2) strictly speaking my argument was that we have necessary proof for the existence of some object that just so happens to have the same exact attributes that Christians attribute to God. But I even pointed out that you don't have to accept the Christian God in my argument. Just about any form of theism would work. The only thing that wouldn't work is atheism.<BR/><BR/>T-Stone said:<BR/>---<BR/>It's quite interesting to hear however that an airtight *proof* has been forumulated.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>And yet the only way you can challenge it is to become completely irrational. Again, I have no problem with you being irrational. It makes my job easier.<BR/><BR/>But of course I have to point out your inconsistencies. You are attempting to "prove" that my "proof" is not necessary; and yet "proof" and "necessity" are themselves predicated on the existence of logic, which is the very thing you are denying in your argument. Thus, you deny from the outset what you <I>need</I> from the outset in order to challenge my viewpoint. This leaves you unable to challenge my viewpoint without proving it correct.<BR/><BR/>Again, keep at it. It makes my job a lot easier and it shows others how irrational atheism has to become simply to deny the obvious.<BR/><BR/>And finally I have to address this little gem. T-Stone said:<BR/>---<BR/>I'm just as withering in my criticism of TANG as TAG.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Which is great considering no atheist holds to TANG. TANG was only invented to combat TAG. The atheists who present TANG don't believe it, they simply think it neutralizes TAG.<BR/><BR/>With theists like T-Stone on your side, who needs atheists?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-21669676321639325132007-04-13T01:31:00.000-04:002007-04-13T01:31:00.000-04:00T-blog: 10T-Stone: 0T-blog: 10<BR/>T-Stone: 0Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9576069039362030632007-04-12T23:41:00.000-04:002007-04-12T23:41:00.000-04:00Paul (or anonymous),Should have commented on this:...Paul (or anonymous),<BR/><BR/>Should have commented on this:<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I>I simply asked for your justification for asserting yourself the winner. If Peter is correct, then you're simply pointing to *paradoxes* and not actual contradictions. Since Peter never denied that a *paradox* can exist, if you've not pointed to a real contradiction, then you've offered no refutation.</I><BR/><BR/>I sort of addressed this in my previous comments, but undertand that I've not pronounced myself the winner here. That's passé. We've covered this here before on Triablogue. Readers can decide for themselves what they think of each person's arguments, but generally, there's just know way to tell how you scored on that level. You just do you your best and leave it at that. Refutation is in the eye of the beholder, which makes your self-declarations always a bit comical. <BR/><BR/>I'll say my piece and leave it at that. CalvinDude is pushing arguments that are fraught with disabling, structural holes. Whether that view on my part is correct isn't gonna be settled here, even if we get to poll everyone who reads this tortured thread. It's a transcendant question that won't be answered until the Big Day When All the Cards Are On the Table.<BR/><BR/>CalvinDude advanced his argument. I offered my critique. I'm OK with leaving it at that. People can make of it what they will.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74373948842288441272007-04-12T23:28:00.000-04:002007-04-12T23:28:00.000-04:00Paul, Peter,So, here's the thing; the points I'm r...Paul, Peter,<BR/><BR/>So, here's the thing; the points I'm raising are potentialities, rather than necessities. Philosophically, those are different. It's the necessities that are hard to justify (if not impossible). Potentialities, well, they're the poor, humble cousins of the necessities that live in the trailer park on the other side of town...<BR/><BR/>CalvinDude, via Bahnsen et al, is forwarding something quite extraordinary: what is held as *necessary* proof for the existence of God. (Or if this is incorrect, and CalvinDude supposes this is only a *sufficient* possibility, rather than a *necessary* case, then I've little to say for the whole thread; that God exists as a possible answer is hardly interesting, as a Christian. It's quite interesting to hear however that an airtight *proof* has been forumulated.)<BR/><BR/>So, the extraordinary claim should have extraordinarily strong support. TAG is called "Transcendental" because it revolves around the Cartesian minimus -- the stripped down starting point where all you can start with for certain is self-awareness (which, again isn't even clearly 'observation' depending on what existential model you're endorsing).<BR/><BR/>I come along and offer things that question the "necessity chain" of TAG; is logic possibly created by God, and thus contingent, and thus not stricly necessary? Is the LNC sovereign across existential/physical models? If so, how does that resolve with what's been gleaned from the quantum world in the last century? I've left out the complaints about TAG's ambiguity with respect to the Qur'an, Bible, Book of Mormon and others...<BR/><BR/>If you are making an argument that holds to *necessity* throughout the chain, then any point where plausible contrary alternatives are identified breaks the "necessity chain" and the argument gets demoted from "must be" to "could be". <BR/><BR/>I don't have to demonstrate than any of those alternatives *are* the case -- no need to demonstrate that the LNC *isn't* applicable at the quantum level or elsewhere, but merely that LNC isn't necessarily the only (exhaustive) option. That tilts the table in my direction, most definitely, no doubt about it. <BR/><BR/>But I'm not the one making the aggressive claims (assuming CalvinDude *is* offering hi representation of TAG as a *necessity*. He declined to clarify this, accusing me of lobbing a "trick question" at him when I asked. [snort!]). It's a very steep hill to climb if one aims to build a necessary proof for the existence of God. But it's similarly steep to build a necessary proof for the *non-existence* of God. I'm just as withering in my criticism of TANG as TAG. <BR/><BR/>All my criticisms simply epistemic conservatism; you can't get there from here, with TAG or TANG, and you're fooling yourselves in either case (and anyone who takes you seriously) if you think this more than a novelty, for or against. There simply isn't *warrant* for the stepping stones deployed. <BR/><BR/>You keep returning to a result that seems to satisfy you; that if TAG isn't correct, then we have no rational way to *think* about the subject. I don't have a problem with going thus far, but where you short-circuit is taking the next step:<BR/><BR/><I>if that's the case, the world *must* correspond to something we can rationalize.</I><BR/><BR/>That's completely unwarranted, and shold be an *obvious* gaping hole visible to any -- Christian or no -- who think about the TAG seriously. This is what I was referring to with CalvinDude thinking that his requirements to be able to think/talk rationally about the subject extended to reality itself; as if reality was bound by some even *higher* principle to map neatly to man's rationalizations about it!<BR/><BR/>CalvinDude and you have satisfied yourself that this distinction amounts to my eschewing rationality in dicucssing this. That's unwarranted as well. I'm reasoning along the lines of separation: we can rationaly discuss the TAG, but the rational analysis of TAG will reveal that that several of the assumptions inherent in TAG are unwarranted. (Paul: not necessarily false, but not necessarily, exclusively true, which is what is required for TAG to retain its overall necessity).<BR/><BR/>Just like in physics, scientist attempt to contextualize and rationalize some really mind-bending stuff. Surreal stuff. Stuff that's patently "Irrational", which is precisely the term that Heisenberg and Bohr used in working out the Copenhagen Interpretation.<BR/><BR/>So, rational discussion that, because of its rationality, recognizes its limits, and humbly cordons off parts of the domain as inscrutable (internally) on a rational basis.<BR/><BR/>That's what's needed here, with you guys generally (in spades!), and specifically with respect to TAG; a truly rational analysis will identify the weak points and equivocations of the argument; it will affirm its epistemic limitations. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that God has been disproved -- He hasn't been and can't be. But, hard as this might be to digest, you've not quite crafted Excalibur yet. I don't have a dog in the hunt here as far as *what* logic must prevail in the Cartesian minimus. The rational answer is "Don't Know!", as opposed to "LNC uber alles!". LNC migth apply, I grant. But there's no warrant to apply it with the confidence you (and by extension, Bahnsen, et al) do.<BR/><BR/>You are way ahead of yourselves.<BR/><BR/>That *is* asymmetric; I have the relatively easy burden of finding weak links in the chain... just a place where plausible alternatives exist causes TAG to collapse. TAG proponents must shoulder a heavy burden.. making sure no weak links in the chain exist. <BR/><BR/>That's just an artifact of the circumstances here: CalvinDude is going out on the limb here, not me. I'm even content to say in some of these areas there *isn't* the necessary predicates for a rational investigation; that's just the way reality is sometimes, much as it apparently offends you both if you can't stuff it in neat little boxes that little human brains can work with.<BR/><BR/>Just a quick example, Paul. <BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I><BR/>Touchstone brings up paraconsistent. Okay, but mentioning a word doesn't save him. For example, can he refute the principle of explosion? WHat if that is true? That would settle it.</I><BR/><BR/>The explosion principle may, indeed be a valid one. And that pushes much of the potential conflict of paraconsistency aside. But, as above, that's not my burden. I don't have to disprove or categorically reject the explosion principle, but simply assert that we don't confidently know one way or the other. If there's doubt, if there's plausibility, even remote plausibility in paraconsistency, then LNC cannot remain intact as an exhaustive necessity.<BR/><BR/>So, no need for me to even take a position on dialetheism or the explosion principle or other contenders, except to hold that they may *be* contenders. Saying "we don't know that" with warrant against LNC or other building blocks in TAG neturalizes TAG. I don't need to prove an alternative *is* the case, just establish that it *might* be. <BR/><BR/>As I said, the rules of engagement on this one are all in my favor. Positive arguments like this are famously hard to make stick. It's easy to tear these kinds of things down, because, well, philosophy just isn't very powerful -- either way, in support of attack of theism.<BR/><BR/>That's really the salient take-away from this strange meta on this post; y'all are quite fascinated by the shiny knobs and dials of the philosophy machine. You think if you can just fiddle with the knobs and dials right, you can get it to produce anything you want, and with authority. <BR/><BR/>The tools and machinery you're fascinated with are *way* more humble and limited than you suppose. TAG is a poster child for this problem.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-66417994828455378712007-04-12T20:38:00.000-04:002007-04-12T20:38:00.000-04:00Touchstone,"Paul (or 'anonymous') casually suggest...Touchstone,<BR/><BR/><I>"Paul (or 'anonymous') casually suggest that "if LNC is inviolate..." then such and such, and I say: hold on, whaddya mean "if"? In your view, LNC must be just possible or sufficient, but *necessary* and *normaitve* for TAG to have any weight at all. If LNC is a contingent constuct, either created by God, or by man in secular conceptions, then it's not necessary or normative to reality."</I><BR/><BR/>Wow, it slipped right past ya, didn't it?<BR/><BR/>I (or 'Paul Manata') simp[ly asked why Touchstone said that actual contradictions existed? What proof did he offer for this? He casually suggests "Contradictions exist all over the place." I say, "Hold on, whaduhya mean, actual/real contradictions? This seems mighty important for your argument to work. And yet nary a demonstration that you're accomplished enough to engage in a sophisticated discussion about this."<BR/><BR/>See, Touchstone, for your argument against Peter to work, the alleged 'contradictions' which supposedly negate Peter's universalizing of the LNC must be actual, not apparant, contradictions.<BR/><BR/>I simply asked for your justification for asserting yourself the winner. If Peter is correct, then you're simply pointing to *paradoxes* and not actual contradictions. Since Peter never denied that a *paradox* can exist, if you've not pointed to a real contradiction, then you've offered no refutation.<BR/><BR/>My argument is rather prior to yours, Touchstone. I'd like to see how your argument goes. is it like this:<BR/><BR/>(*) If something appears contradictory to Touchstone, it must actually be contradictory?<BR/><BR/>Or, perhaps this is your reasoning:<BR/><BR/>(**) Since Touchstone knows all the possible facts that could bear on what seems contradictory, then if the verdict is in *now* that something is a contradiction, then it must be since no further information could relieve the conceptual headache.<BR/><BR/>Next, why do you say that the LNC is *not* necessary or normative to reality? I don't get it. Are you saying that reality, if the way you see it, cannot be another way at the same time and relationship? I mean, why say that the LNC has nothing to do with reality, while also applying the LNC to reality?<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, the LNC need not be necessary for TAG to work. Say an argument is put forth whereby the reliability of your cognitive faculties are undermined in an alethic-rationality way, thereby arguing that you have no reason to believe that your beliefs are successfully aimed at producing true beliefs. So, if you *believe* that the LNC doesn't hold, you have no reason to believe your belief is true. Now, you could grant Christian theism, restoring the rational belief that your cognitive faculties are aimed at truth, and then still hold on to your view about the LNC. So, to save the alethic-rationality of your denial of the LNC, you'd need to adapt Christian theism.<BR/><BR/>Touchstone brings up paraconsistent. Okay, but mentioning a word doesn't save him. For example, can he refute the principle of explosion? WHat if that is true? That would settle it. Better men than he and I have battled over this, and so don't let Touchstone snowball you with the mere mentioning of a word.<BR/><BR/>Next, does Touchstone say that any and all contradictions are exteptable? If not, why not? Is it because those hook up to reality? Does this hamper what he said above, then? If so, then how could San Diego be both in, and not in, California at the same time and relationship?<BR/><BR/>Basically, Touchstone avoided the questions and tried to turn the discussion in another direction. My main point, before I had to go off onto his rabbit trails, was that Touchstone has put up no arguments which support his claim that these "contradictions" he's pointing out to undermine the universality of the LNC, are actually contradictions and not paradoxes. His *entire* argument is predicated upon this *crucial* assumption of his. He rejects the universality of tyhe LNC and so *of course*(!) he sees these "contradictions" as proof of his position. But, isn't this an example of "QUESTION BEGGING" and <BR/>"ARGUING BY PRESUPPOSITION" which he *staunchly forbid* in the other thread he was posting in?<BR/><BR/>Touchstone is sloppy. He pretends to be a great thinker. A philosophizer. A cosmopoliton theist. He's a man about town. An ecclectic. Hired gun. He doesn't know what he's doing, but knows enough to name drop and threaten. He shows no familiarity with the arguments that a search on google doesn't yeild him. Not a deep thinker. Just wants to win. Hates the Triablogue guys. Has been dubbed a heretic by church creeds and councils, and so hates orthodox Christians. He's unfamiliar with the history of philosophy. He's offering nothinh new. The nominalists made the same claims. There's no universals instantiated among the particulars. No universal logos. We don't think God's thoughts after God. All that exists are the particulars. We can't apply our reasoning to God and his word, and vice versa. God becomes distant. Nominalists paved gthe way for deism. Deism is quite comfy with evolution. Touchstone has a presuppositiuon he's working with here. He needs to save it, and so he reasons a certain way. Science and faith are separate. Faith is private. That's all that matters. Thus there can be no conflict between the two, they operate in different domains. Touchstone isn't unique. He satnds in a long line of refuted theologians and positions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69184528515775470442007-04-12T18:52:00.000-04:002007-04-12T18:52:00.000-04:00Anonymous said...How can one recognize if one has ...Anonymous said...<BR/>How can one recognize if one has what it takes to study logic at a high level?<BR/><BR/>Should one be able to identify fallacies almost immediately? <BR/><BR/>What are the skills generally required? What kind of characteristics are essential?<BR/><BR/>*****************************<BR/><BR/>It operates at different levels. One needs to have a natural grasp of informal logic. Logical intuition.<BR/><BR/>It also helps to have a conscious knowledge for informal logical fallacies.<BR/><BR/>Formal logic is extremely technical.<BR/><BR/>But even professional logicians can be illogical if they are committed to a false position. A good example is Bertrand Russell. He was, among other things, a logician. Yet his anti-Christian diatribes are riddled with fallacious reasoning.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-9645652006760788222007-04-12T18:47:00.001-04:002007-04-12T18:47:00.001-04:00For logical fallacies, I enjoyed reading With Good...For logical fallacies, I enjoyed reading <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Good-Reason-Introduction-Informal-Fallacies/dp/0312157584/" REL="nofollow">With Good Reason: An Introduction To Informal Fallacies</A>.<BR/><BR/>Many (most?) fallacies are hard to spot for most people--this is why they work. It's something you get better with over time though. Once you get used to spotting them, they're easier to find.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7230528454269291422007-04-12T18:44:00.000-04:002007-04-12T18:44:00.000-04:00Anonymous said:Thanks Steve, I will check that out...Anonymous said:<BR/>Thanks Steve, I will check that out. Someone recommended "Come Let Us Reason" by Geisler and Brooks. Any thoughts on which would be better?<BR/><BR/>*****************************<BR/><BR/>There are two kinds of popularizers: those who write at a popular level because they think at a popular level, and experts who write introductory works. Geach was a logic prof., and I think it's better to read an introductory work by an expert in the field—unlike Geisler and Brooks.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15399181454486458422007-04-12T18:00:00.000-04:002007-04-12T18:00:00.000-04:00How can one recognize if one has what it takes to ...How can one recognize if one has what it takes to study logic at a high level?<BR/><BR/>Should one be able to identify fallacies almost immediately? <BR/><BR/>What are the skills generally required? What kind of characteristics are essential?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31667067478769070922007-04-12T17:37:00.000-04:002007-04-12T17:37:00.000-04:00Thanks Steve, I will check that out. Someone recom...Thanks Steve, I will check that out. Someone recommended "Come Let Us Reason" by Geisler and Brooks. Any thoughts on which would be better?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51017921434874037292007-04-12T17:30:00.000-04:002007-04-12T17:30:00.000-04:00One good book is:P. T. Geach, Reason and Argument ...One good book is:<BR/><BR/>P. T. Geach, Reason and Argument (University of California Press 1976).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-89012652088947921022007-04-12T17:21:00.000-04:002007-04-12T17:21:00.000-04:00T-Stone,Again, your counter-arguments are not rele...T-Stone,<BR/><BR/>Again, your counter-arguments are not relevant to anything that I've put forward. I say "apples" and you say "oranges" and think you've refuted my position. But then I suppose this is "logical" when you reject logic.<BR/><BR/>In any case, as I've already said repeatedly, <I>I have no problem at all if you wish to be irrational</I>. Have at it. I don't mind. You can "avoid" the arguments all you want by retreating to irrationality. I'm not going to stop you: in fact, I'll hold the door open for you!<BR/><BR/>If the only defense you can mount against my view is to deny rationality, that says all it needs to about the strength of our positions right there.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-104515146822985542007-04-12T16:31:00.000-04:002007-04-12T16:31:00.000-04:00CalvinDude,The distinction your stumbling on is th...CalvinDude,<BR/><BR/>The distinction your stumbling on is the separation between my reliance on LNC as a useful communications and cognitive tool, and LNC being some kind of "god" -- transcendant, normative to any reality.<BR/><BR/>Paul (or 'anonymous') casually suggest that "if LNC is inviolate..." then such and such, and I say: hold on, whaddya mean "if"? In your view, LNC must be just possible or sufficient, but *necessary* and *normaitve* for TAG to have any weight at all. If LNC is a contingent constuct, either created by God, or by man in secular conceptions, then it's not necessary or normative to reality. <BR/><BR/>That doesn't mean we can use it to good effect -- manifestly, it can be. It's just an error to think that since Peter Pike or Paul Manata have managed to wrap their around the LNC that LNC is existentially foundational. <BR/><BR/>Necessarily.<BR/><BR/>It may be, but don't have epistemic grounds to establish its necessity and normativity. Other logical frameworks, which I think the writers I've read on this would call "paraconistent" in terms of how they are viewed by humans, can't be ruled out.<BR/><BR/>For example, a Buddhist friend of mine regularly reminds me that LNC is a largely western philosophical construction; in Indian and Buddhist philosophy, the "state" of a proposition is often expressed as one of the set of:<BR/><BR/>a) true<BR/>b) false<BR/>c) true *and* false<BR/>d) neither true *or* false<BR/><BR/>and optionally, even:<BR/><BR/>e) none of the above<BR/><BR/>In any case, philopsophy has a rich vein of history, ancient and modern concerning dialetheism. The Liar's paradox, Zeno's paradox, and of course some really mind bending quantum states are examples you can look at for dialetheism.<BR/><BR/>Which is different than trivialism, by the way which you seem to think is the only alternative to LNC.<BR/><BR/><BR/>You're banking on a shibboleth, and only a shibboleth. You're so innured to LNC, that that's all you're apparently able to conceive of. If reality is such that existence is "irrational" vis-a-vis your LNC lens, then, well, it just can't be. <BR/><BR/>Why? Well, because it just can't. Or that's the best I've got from you thus far. <BR/><BR/>As for complaints that this conversation or all human communication would be impossible without LNC, that maybe true, but it's wholly irrelevant; we can employ LNC to our hearts content, whilst the underlying reality operates on a different, para-consistent (to you) logic all the while. LNC would just be a handy pedagogical and analogical device, but carries no freight at all in determining any existential fundamentals.<BR/><BR/>I'm happy asking if your conclusion is "necessary" -- which you haven't answered, by the way -- fully knowing the LNC (or LNC-friendly) basis for such classification. It's de-coupled from the existential question though. I may obsess as a human on LNC, but if God's creation operates on a separate kind of logic at the lowest fundamental levels, what's the problem?<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52114252873483173612007-04-12T16:16:00.000-04:002007-04-12T16:16:00.000-04:00Can someone please recommend a book (or books) tha...Can someone please recommend a book (or books) that I can use to study logic?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1656322678465639452007-04-12T13:52:00.000-04:002007-04-12T13:52:00.000-04:00While I was out on an errand, I remembered somethi...While I was out on an errand, I remembered something else here. T-Stone said:<BR/>---<BR/>Human conceptions of "exist/not exist" as simple Boolean pairs *may* in fact reflect the underlying reality. It's a possible and sufficient answer. <BR/><BR/>But it's not a necessary answer.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately for T-Stone, "necessary" is predicated on <I>logical</I> necessity. In other words, to say something is or is not necessary one must accept the validity of logic. T-Stone's position, however, is not from a logical basis; it denies the very basic laws of logic.<BR/><BR/>As such, it is impossible for T-Stone to ever say that my position is "not necessary" for that would first require him to accept logic, which (once accepted) makes my position necessary.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50966717538173414322007-04-12T12:52:00.000-04:002007-04-12T12:52:00.000-04:00I've already demonstrated how the Copenhagen Inter...I've already demonstrated how the Copenhagen Interpretation (which, regardless of T-Stone's whitewashing, is hardly indisputed!) is disanalogous to my own argument already. Since there is someone who perceives, observation occurs. Thus, something that is unobserved is quite obviously <I>disanalogous</I> to my position.<BR/><BR/>Schroedinger's cat is, and always has been, a <I>thought experiment</I>. It can never be verified. It cannot be scientifically tested. Is the cat an observer? Is the trigger that the radioactive particle may, or may not, strike an observer? These questions don't just magically disappear because T-Stone decides this non-analogous analogy somehow disproves my position.<BR/><BR/>Since my argument above already started with an observer, everything that occured before this observation in the quantum "black box" is irrelevant to my argument. Observation <I>has occured</I>, hence my argument follows.<BR/><BR/>The most T-Stone could argue is that before observation occured, it "could have" gone either way and at "that point" it could have been indeterminate; but we're not <I>at</I> that point. My argument was based on my observations. For the purposes of this arugment, there is no "black box" where the "cat" is hidden from view so we're left with mere probability. The box is open, the "waveform" has collapsed from the probable to the actual.<BR/><BR/>Even if we theorize possible alternate universes where logic doesn't exist, that doesn't change the fact that logic must necessarily exist in <I>this</I> universe, and my argument follows again.<BR/><BR/>T-Stone is as rational as the man who falls out of an airplane and decides his odds of survival are good because in the majority of possible universes he never got on the plane in the first place.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64415535550265490942007-04-12T12:38:00.000-04:002007-04-12T12:38:00.000-04:00Touchstone,I don't see how your position is entail...Touchstone,<BR/><BR/>I don't see how your position is entailed. Why *must* you call "reality" (the lower levels) *contradictory?* Why can't you say that it is an *apparent* contradiction. That, if we knew more facts, we would see how the supposed contradictions were not really contradictions.<BR/><BR/>Really, for all your big talk, you're doing the same thing you accuse Peter of. You have this "little box" and you want the findings to "fit" with it. So, you assume irrationality is not a problem, and then bash the law of non-contradiction with that. But, this is just posturing. If the LNC is inviolate, then your supposed contradictions are merely *apparent.*<BR/><BR/>Hence, just because *you* have certain assumptions, doesn't mean the LNC doesn't hold. For, it very well could be the case that the things yopu see are not contradictions, but apparent ones and you lack the info to resolve it.<BR/><BR/>It's like you assume that what you observe here and now is the totality of information. That if Touchstone can't resolve it, no one can. That the facts now are the only facts there are.<BR/><BR/>Att the end of the day, after the posturing, Touchstone hasn't shown squat. He does the same thing he accuses Peter of. And, his conclusions don't follow from his premises.<BR/><BR/>We have had a long history of "scientific facts" that look one way, turning out to be another way, or some other reason for why things happen the way they do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80608400496268594482007-04-12T12:07:00.000-04:002007-04-12T12:07:00.000-04:00CalvinDude,A major indication of the observations ...CalvinDude,<BR/><BR/>A major indication of the observations and physics that gave rise to the Copenhagen Interpretation (and the Ensemble Interpretation, Objective Wave Collapse, Many Worlds..) is that the underlying reality doesn't fit into the neat little box that you want to cram it into. This isn't just hypothetical musings of a mountain-top rasputin; this is applied physics -- experimentation, measurement, verification.<BR/><BR/>And the outcome of that is a set of factors that, in your tidy little terminology, is "irrational", on a fundamentally low level. <BR/><BR/>Reality has core features that are irrational (your usage).<BR/><BR/>So, you dismiss this like some sort of physics "scam"? You are more committed to your a prior preferences about how reality *should* be and how "transcendant logic" is some inviolate necessary existential precondition.<BR/><BR/>Well, the physical world doesn't play along with your restrictions. The physical world, the world God made, doesn't line up with your simple notions.<BR/><BR/>Logic and propositions are invaluable tools for humans and their communications. But your brain is not *normative* to reality, Calvindude. I realize you won't post the things you do if you had that digested, but I'm throwing it out there once again.<BR/><BR/>If reality (or low-level parts of it at least) is irrational, should we "throw it out", stick our fingers in our ears when physicists tell us P or ~P is a badly formed question?<BR/><BR/>At the heart of this is the idea that you (apparently) suppose irrationality to be something akin to "stupid". The irrational elements of quantum physics still, by observation, behave according to an orderly set of constraints and dynamics. They just aren't rendered discretely, the way humans are used to conceptualizing things. The "irrational" parts, then are fully functional, and wonderful, part of God's design. It just makes a mockery of man's hubris concerning the transcendant powers of his "logic".<BR/><BR/>So thank you for the chance to leave room for existential constructs that don't neatly fit into the brain of CalvinDude. Human conceptions of "exist/not exist" as simple Boolean pairs *may* in fact reflect the underlying reality. It's a possible and sufficient answer. <BR/><BR/>But it's not a necessary answer.<BR/><BR/>I don't think God would be particularly disturbed to hear that CalvinDude protest: But that's not *rational*!<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45904378888970204412007-04-12T11:31:00.000-04:002007-04-12T11:31:00.000-04:00T-Stone said:---It doesn't follow if you exist-not...T-Stone said:<BR/>---<BR/>It doesn't follow if you exist-not-exist in a state that defies the Law of Non-contradiction.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>And if it defies the Law of Non-Contradiction then A) it is irrational and B) there is no way to communicate it. You shoot yourself in the foot with this argument, T-Stone.<BR/><BR/>If it is true, you can't rationally speak about it.<BR/><BR/>But like I said before, if you want to jettison rationality, feel free to do so. I'll simply continue to point out that you are irrational.<BR/><BR/>Theism = rational; atheism = irrational.<BR/><BR/>I'm quite content to let readers decide which they'd prefer to be. There's a reason Scripture says: "The <I>fool</I> says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72361990907924465652007-04-12T10:30:00.000-04:002007-04-12T10:30:00.000-04:00CalvinDude,You said:This is the point of my argume...CalvinDude,<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/><I>This is the point of my argument. If I perceive something that's "real", the rest follows; if I perceive something that's not "real", the rest still follows.</I><BR/><BR/>It doesn't follow if you exist-not-exist in a state that defies the Law of Non-contradiction. So, you're assuming that your 'perception' -- cogito ergo sum -- qualifies as physical observation that causes decoherence. I can't see any warrant for that. Your perception/observation may be entirely metaphysical.<BR/><BR/>Even setting that difficulty aside, it's not been established that "exist" or "not exist" are the only two states available, and that one must be fully and exclusively true, at least in a transcendental way. It's certainly the case that a (human) mind can create labels and mental categories as a way to visualize and contextualize the things one perceives. But there's no warrant for assuming that because one perceives that binary propositional logic exists as *precondition* to this perception, rather than a simple artifact of it -- a useful construct you synthesize to aid in thinking.<BR/><BR/>If propositional binary logic is synthesized, then it is contingent, and thus not a precondition or necessary. <BR/><BR/>In any case, I read what you wrote, initially, and subsequently, about what you perceive, and your belief that you are an observer. It was because you said those things that I objected.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneTouchstonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03733806892886921425noreply@blogger.com