ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

LOGIC - The Law of IDENTITY Axiom (A=A) is NOT True

Updated on August 25, 2012

INTRODUCTION

We hear this claim all the time:


“The Law of Identity A=A is a self-evident truth. All of logic and existence depends on it. Without it, you wouldn’t exist, wouldn’t be able to think, wouldn’t be able to talk intelligibly, wouldn’t be able to blah blah.....”


When we ask the proponent why it is so, his response is always: “Nobody knows, but it just is man, it just is....trust me, ok?”

Sorry dude, but these outrageous claims will need a rational explanation. Perhaps some choose to have faith on what their Priest (i.e. authority) tells them, but those who can think for themselves do things a little differently.


This article will expose the nonsense proliferating the Internet about the Law of Identity. Both theists and atheists alike have ascribed super magical powers to this axiom of Classical Logic and have made it even more powerful than God. They claim that reality depends on it to function, and countless of other absurdities.




AXIOMS ARE THE FOUNDATIONS FOR A SYSTEM OF LOGIC

All Systems of Logic, be it Classical Logic, Fuzzy Logic, Tri-valent Logic, Intuitionist Logic, Quantum Logic, Business Logic, Computer Programs, Mathematics, The Judicial System, etc., are founded on their initial pre-defined rules, the axioms. Axioms are nothing but rules which we define to be the foundation for any System of Logic. They must be assumed in order to use their logical system in its intended context. All axioms are DEFINED to be valid within the context of THEIR logical system only. For example, the laws in any Judicial System are axioms which are defined or decreed to be valid, whether they make sense or not, whether they are morally right or not, or whether you like them or not. If you want to live in your society you must assume and accept the laws (axioms) of your Judicial System, even if they are different in other countries. Axioms are generally only applicable within the context of their System of Logic. For example, the Classical Logic axioms are not compatible with many other logical systems, including Intuitionist and Tri-valent Logic which don’t support the Law of Excluded Middle. Intuitionistic logic is of great interest to computer scientists, as it is a constructive logic and can be applied for extracting verified programs from proofs. Quantum Logic is a very interesting example which invalidates all of the laws of Classical Logic.


All statements of inference within a System of Logic are nothing but higher order DERIVATIONS from their axioms. Try to conceptualize a hierarchical tree of all possible derived statements traversed from those axioms at the root. Any logical statement you can conceive in that system can be found within its derivation tree. So when you analyse a statement to infer another logical statement, you are in effect traversing the derivation tree to your desired point; whether you realize it or not. This is what axioms do. They define and establish the roots of your inference tree for all the logical statements you can possibly infer via a process of derivation.

What is logic? You are urged to read the article below to understand what logic is, so you can put to rest all the God-like mysticism surrounding this word:


http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-LOGIC-Logic-does-NOT-Provide-PROOFS-and-TRUTHS




MOST ATHEISTS AND THIESTS DECREE THE LAWS OF CLASSICAL LOGIC AS ABSOLUTE

How can these folks make such statements without providing any argument to justify their claims? Well, because they don’t have an argument....just a claim, right?

If Classical Logic is not compatible with all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of systems of logic humans invented....then just what the heck makes its axioms absolute? Can someone please answer this question in the comments section?

The instant you attempt to answer this question, you will understand that there are no absolutes.....absolute truth is impossible. It is impossible to validate any axiom or proposition to be absolute. The term “absolute” is a contradictory and impossible concept, as explained in this article is extreme detail:


http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/There-are-NO-Absolutes-There-is-NO-Absolute-Truth




ALL AXIOMS ARE TAUTOLOGIES

All axioms, from any System of Logic, are categorized as tautological; i.e. they are taken for granted as stand-alone valid representations of themselves. Hence, any System of Logic can be referred to as a “tautology” because all of its inferred (i.e. derived) conclusions stem from its axioms and premises. Any logical conclusion is an equivalent subset of the premises. In other words, a tautology is a statement that is valid by virtue of its axioms and premises, ....or one which is assumed to be valid in and of itself (in the case of an axiom). This term should not be confused with a specific instance of a “tautology” of Classical Logic which is derived from the Law of Excluded Middle. Although they all do fall in the category we call “tautology”.

Tautologies cannot be rationally said to resolve to truth, since there is no possible verification mechanism that can validate a tautology and prove it as truth. Since all statements in any System of Logic are conceptually dependent on their inferred derivations, proof and validation are inapplicable here. Logical statements are valid if and only if they are derived within their Logical System; i.e. only if they are within their logical derivation tree. A tautology is valid BY DEFINITION, only! This is why finite state machines, like computers, are able to derive higher order tautologies from their base axioms without any human intervening and validating the conclusion. Tautologies are purely rule-based (axiomatic) concepts.

In ordinary speech, some will say that axioms are self-evident” truths, even though this is a misnomer. Self-evident means that it is a pre-DEFINED rule which is assumed to be valid. But from a rational perspective, axioms and even their inferred statements are not truths. Tautologies certainly don't provide truths because they are implicitly rooted in their logical derivation tree. Tautologies are purely derivational. They have nothing to do with truth as they don’t depend on an observer to validate an alleged truth. Tautologies are purely conceptual instances of a derivational inference tree.




1+1=2 IS NOT A TRUTH!

People who say that 1+1=2 is true don’t really understand what axioms, tautologies and Systems of Logic are about. Mathematics, like any axiomatic system of inference, is strictly reliant on such axioms (rules) which make math statements valid within its logical system. 1+1=2 is logically valid by DEFINITION and definition alone; i.e. by virtue of its axioms, and certainly not by truth!

Even still, many assert that 1+1=2 is a “self-evident truth”. Self-evident to whom...God? Self-evident truths are nothing but an illusion, as is easily shown when you subject them to critical thought. 1+1=2 is not self evident in any system of logic or mathematics. It took Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead more than 700 pages of logic to arrive at the theorem to validate that 1+1=2. Obviously, if it was “self-evident” then these mathematicians must have been a bunch of fools to write a whole book on 1+1=2, right?

To say that the axioms of math or logic, or any axioms are self evident truths does indeed require FAITH that they are true. You must ASSUME them to be true in order to proceed to use that System of Logic and derive a statement of conclusion. Systems of Logic are all about ASSUMPTION & DERIVATION – never of truth! You are certainly free to believe they are true, but that has no relevance on the logical system itself. Even Godel justified that axioms in any System of Logic are not self-evident or true. He showed that they can only be taken on faith.

People will often say that 1+1=2 has to do with reality. But 1+1=2 does not stand alone like an object can. There is no physical object which is a ‘1’ or a ‘2’; these are only conceptual labels.1+1=2 is conceived solely as a RELATION between these labels. Hence, it is a concept which necessarily requires an observer, as all concepts do. Math is derived solely by way of logical application of its axioms to derive higher order expressions. For example, 2+2=4 depends on the axioms of arithmetic, the rules of inference and the values of 2,+,=, and 4....and that observers exist at all to consider and apply them. Mathematics is a language which is used to describe abstract concepts. Mathematics or its derivational statements are not real; they don’t exist. They are only conceived by humans via abstract relationships; i.e. they are tautologies. That “my grandfather is my dad’s father”; is another example of a tautology according to the System of Linguistics. All languages are Systems of Logic with their own specific axioms (i.e. rules of grammar).

Axioms are rules invented and followed by humans. As rules, they are only applicable in the context of a specific system of usage. And as rules, they can be broken or superseded as we see fit. For example, the international prototype of the ‘meter’ was retired from active duty in 1960, when scientists redefined the meter. They redefined it again in 1983; a meter is now officially “the length of the path traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second”. Scientists now have similarly bold plans to re-DEFINE the kilogram standard of mass (which lost 50 mcg in the last century), and indeed for several other base units of measure, like the ampere, the mole and the Kelvin. This would be the biggest change in metrology since the metric system was introduced during the French Revolution.

Mother Nature does not recognize weights, measures, languages, logic and mathematics. These are conceptual systems invented and defined by man to serve their anthropocentric purposes; and as such, are inherently subjective when applied to reality. Reality is observer-independent and not axiomatic; i.e. reality is objective.




THE LAW OF IDENTITY (A=A) IS NOT A TRUTH!

Oh yeah, this is a really precious argument:


“The Law of Identity A=A is a self-evident truth. All of logic and existence depends on it. Without it, you wouldn’t exist, wouldn’t be able to think, wouldn’t be able to talk intelligibly, wouldn’t be able to blah blah.....”


Is the act of human repetition worthy of such worship? Is human repetition as powerful as God?

To say that A=A (A is A) offers anything meaningful or constructive is beyond lunacy!

A=A is rhetoric, redundancy, repetition - it has no meaning. An “apple is apple”. So what? What have we learned from this repetitive statement? It’s trivial and pointless. It adds nothing to our understanding, nor does it explain anything. You can define what the symbol ‘A’ means and what the symbol ‘=’ or ‘is’ means,... but it is impossible for you define what ‘A=A’ means. Rhetoric cannot be defined. It is meaningless repetition......a horse is a horse ....of course of course. It doesn’t tell us anything. We already know what a horse is.

If a statement has something to say and be understood, it should be with meaning. A statement needs to be additive (i.e. A = this and that blah blah...), not repetitive (i.e. A=A). So it is irrational to say A=A is the basis of truth, philosophy, understanding, existence and other such nonsense.

The basis of all understanding is predicated on critical thinking and rational explanations. A meaningful statement must be coherent, descriptive and/or explanatory....not rhetorical, like A=A.

I mean, what is the profound knowledge in these repetitive statements that people worship? These folks and their A=A statements offer exactly what every Priest in this world offers: more sophistry, obfuscation and delusion. Their arguments don’t provide any explanation or clarification. They are only meant to impress gullible pushovers via extraneous confusion. Anybody who parrots the A=A rhetoric in their argument has their own personal labyrinth of smoke and mirrors which presents the illusion of a coherent argument. They invoke undefined buzzwords like “logic”, “identity”, “truth”, “proof” and “absolutes”. But this worldview instantly collapses under the slightest scrutiny. They cannot justify their arguments, so they run away when cornered with the issues.

Perhaps as part of their therapy some folks like to repeat the name of every object they pass by (i.e. chair is chair); thinking they’ve made some breathtaking discovery. But one’s mental illness and its associated rituals do not concern reality.




CONCLUSION

The Law of Identity (A is A) is completely useless and has no place in any argument, as it only adds redundancy. I challenge anyone to post a single argument of reality which can be justified and elucidated using their cherished Law of Identity. Anyone?

Remember: Existence just is, not “is=is”.

So folks, if you attempt to use this A=A “identity” nonsense in your arguments, just be careful....you will place yourself in the spotlight of absurdity. So be prepared to explain what value the Law of Identity adds to your argument.

Comments

Submit a Comment

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 2 years ago

    Mike,

    PROOF = TRUTH = OPINION. Reality has ZERO to do with the opinions of human apes. Perhaps your Pastor didn’t tell you that. How convenient for him to keep you in the dark all these years. Must be very comfortable always having your head under his robe.

    Here, educate yourself….

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-...

    .

    “This is what they call a "Self-Defeatist Argument"”

    Exactly! You have pooped a very obvious contradiction here. Existence cannot be proven….never ever. So your death-defying argumentative point is moot. Take a Physics 101 course to understand why ‘exist’ can only be DEFINED and never OPINED (i.e. proven).

  • profile image

    Mike 2 years ago

    Epidemiological nihilism, FTW.

    Prove you exist. You can't.

    This is what they call a "Self-Defeatist Argument".

    Try again, fatfgt.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Ya, sorry about that. It's a system error I can't fix on my side no matter what I do.

  • profile image

    Duke 3 years ago

    Fyi on that other article currently the heading has gone askew. It reads:

    ' TOPIC Education and Science → Philosophy CLICK TO EDIT helpTITLE Law of Identity (A is A) is Contradictory helpSUMMARY Click to add a summary. The first 140-1'

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Is there perhaps a stronger argument than this? Can you propose a system of logic in which LoI does not hold?”

    Here is the original argument:

    https://hubpages.com/education/Law-of-Identity-A-i...

    We have Systems of Logic where there is no Law of Identity:

    1) First and foremost, Aristotle’s Classical Logic. Aristotle did not posit such an axiom. This is explained in the article linked above.

    2) Quantum Logic is a very interesting example which invalidates and refutes all of the laws of Classical Logic including A is A.

    3) Wittgenstein’s Tractatus system of logic is constructed around seven basic propositional axioms and there is NO law of Identity, NO Law of non-contradiction and NO law of excluded-middle.

    And tons more. Humans invent Systems of Logic to derive logic that is not applicable to other systems we have, even Classical.

    .

    “for example in congruence theorems in geometry, or to derive important properties of rings in abstract algebra”

    Please give an example and I will show you that you think you are using “A is A” (only because your teacher told you so), but you actually aren’t.

  • profile image

    phigknotpig 3 years ago

    Hi FatFist, I've read a few of your articles now, and I have enjoyed them very much. You have great passion and a unique perspective on the powers, and limitations, of logic. I had some contentions on this article regarding the Law of Identity (LoI) that I thought I'd share-- these may have already been discussed in the comments, which are too long for me to read in their entirety, so I apologize if I am repeating points.

    =======

    1) I was hoping to see in your article a direct counter-example to the LoI. Instead your rejection of LoI seems to be based on its lack of utility:

    "It’s trivial and pointless. It adds nothing to our understanding, nor does it explain anything."

    Is there perhaps a stronger argument than this? Can you propose a system of logic in which LoI does not hold? Maybe within some non-bivalent logical system?

    Or perhaps you could propose a logical system that leaves the true/falseness of LoI undecided? Similarly to how ZMF set theory leaves undecided Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis?

    2) On the subject of utility, here's a consideration: How useful would a system of logic be that takes the negation of LoI as an axiom? I.e. A=~A for all As. I doubt very much that the "derivation tree" for this logical system would yield much fruit-- in fact, I suspect it might chop itself down.

    3) Finally, I disagree that the LoI is not a useful axiom for some logical systems. We use it all the time in mathematics, for example in congruence theorems in geometry, or to derive important properties of rings in abstract algebra.

    =============

    Thanks for reading my comment! I am eager to read your reply.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    This is the ongoing issue with Bimbos who don’t understand what Logic is:

    1) They realize that air molecules are invisible to the naked eye and thus the bundle of air in front of them is invisible. They also realize that cells are invisible to the naked eye….but a human in front of them is not invisible. And it is IMPOSSIBLE using Tautologies (like Systems of Logic) to reason and explain WHY there is a difference in these two scenarios. But these clowns don’t understand why.

    .

    2) They don’t understand that ALL objects have an inherent property on how they relay light signals. Glass relays light signals in a different way than rocks, air molecules and cells. But Logic is powerless to discern this in each scenario. According to Logic, if cells are invisible to the human eye, then a human MUST necessarily be invisible too. That's why Logic has NO applications in Physics....only in Tautologies. Just fools don't understand this!

    .

    3) They don’t understand that ‘tiny’ is NOT a property of any object. For example: we place a volleyball and a golf ball on the ground. Bimbo Fernando claims the golf ball has the property of ‘tiny’ as the idiot verifies with his senses by comparison to the volleyball, and swears to it with his hand on the Bible. Fatfist comes along, burns the volleyball to dust with his torch and places a shotgun pellet beside the golf ball. Now Fatfist tells the idiot, that according to his retarded reasoning, the pellet has the property of ‘tiny’ and NOT the golf ball. How can the golf ball lose its property when nothing changed on the golf ball? Because it NEVER had such a ludicrous property……Fernando LIED with his hand on the Bible! ‘Tiny’ is the OPINION of an idiot human, not an inherent property of any object.

    .

    4) They don’t understand that Logic only DERIVES conclusions from the PREMISES and has NO reasoning or rationalizing ability whatsoever! It takes a human brain to rationalize. AND HE MUST DO THAT OUTSIDE OF ANY SYSTEM OF LOGIC. That’s why Logic CANNOT be used in anything having to do with reality or Physics, like cells, atoms, or any object for that matter. Logic has only ONE possible use: in Tautological systems which are inherently derivational and limited in scope with finite states. The human brain is not limited in scope and can reason anything because it does NOT use Logic to do so.

    .

    5) These Bimbos use their sensory system to pull OPINIONS out of their butts and decree them as reality or having to do with Physics. Then they make outlandish claims that it was actually Logic that drew such conclusions, not their sensory system. They try to pull the wool over your eyes. Hilarious!

    .

    6) What’s worse than the ignorance they display in points 1 to 5 above? LOL…They need a Priest (i.e. an Authority) to grab their hand, caress their cheeks, sit them on their lap and whisper in their ear to persuade and convince them to BELIEVE what Fatfist says is ‘true’. If they cannot find such a Priest on the planet, then what Fatfist says must be ‘false’, right? Do you smell a Fallacy here?

    These poo-poo-heads have NO brains to think and reason for themselves what is discussed here. A human with a brain can easily show where the contradiction is, if any. He doesn’t need a Priest to whine & bellyache to, like Sister Fernanda does.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Be invisible to naked eye, IS A PROPERTY that a aggregate o cells has in common with a single cell.”

    Exactly! That an object is translucent is a property of an object because that object relays light signals along a rectilinear path. Other objects are opaque and deflect light signals along the refractive path. This happens even if no human has evolved in the Universe. So there is nothing for a human to compare and inject his opinion. This is a real property of an object and how it relays light! Physics 101.

    See….when idiots haven’t a clue about Physics they get all flustered and paranoid when their Religion gets destroyed.

    .

    “Because PROPERTIES of a single object, as ONLY YOU ON THE WHOLE UNIVERSE says, becomes automagically a property of any aggregate of that object.”

    No. Because this effect of translucent objects occurs even if no humans exist to give an opinion on the issue. You are too dumb to understand the difference between Physics and Religion and Logic. You intermix all 3 and make a fool of yourself.

    .

    “And ONLY YOU says that.”

    Wow….you are so fast to have surveyed over 7 billion people on the planet in a few hours. How do you do it? If you are looking for Authorities to confirm stuff for you….go become a Sister in a convent, ok?

    ,

    “Tiny is not a property.”

    Bingo! This is the first rational thing you said since you came here.

    .

    “I hope you satisfied yourself”

    Only rational explanations can possibly bring on satisfaction. That’s why you will never be satisfied with your self…..you can’t explain anything, much less understand simple concepts. Are you from the UK?

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    Ahhhhh !

    I got !

    Be invisible to naked eye, IS A PROPERTY that a aggregate o cells has in common with a single cell. Because PROPERTIES of a single object, as ONLY YOU ON THE WHOLE UNIVERSE says, becomes automagically a property of any aggregate of that object.

    Ok.

    Tiny is not a property.

    Be invisible to naked eye, Ohhhh ! It is a property.

    Tiny is not magically inherited by the aggregate. But invisibility to naked eye, certainly is.

    And ONLY YOU says that.

    I'm satisfied already.

    I hope you satisfied yourself.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Fat : It's not a rule. It's inherent to tautologous nature of System of Logic.

    Fernando: “There is not an author making this claim ?”

    You have your head waaaaaaaay up yo butt, Fernando. That’s why you cannot understand the difference between a ‘claim’ and an ‘explanation’. A claim is an assertion WITHOUT an explanation to justify it. Got it? I already explained WHY tautological Systems of Logic are purely DERIVATIONAL and have NO analysis and decision-making capabilities, like a human brain does. Logic only DERIVES conclusions. Only a brain can reason…..and to do so it MUST NECESSARILY GO OUTSIDE OF LOGIC.

    Which part are you having trouble understanding, Fernando?

    .

    “As far as i know, "-" is not "------------------"

    Yes…yes…yes…as far as YOU can reason! Logic cannot reason this. It can only DERIVE that both have the same properties as I have explained to you FIVE times already!

    You need to make any decision based on what your senses detect. Logic does nothing for you other than DERIVE. What are you having trouble with?

    .

    “The fact that a cell is so tiny that it cannot be seemed by naked eye, does not lead that an aggregate of billions of cells are as tiny.”

    Again…tiny is not a property of anything, much less a cell. That requires a HUMAN to compare at least 2 objects and declare with his sensory system what is tiny and what isn’t. This is nothing to do with logic. Your argument is moot! You are arguing with yourself in circles because you have NO clue what you are talking about and NO clue that Logic derives…..and that humans think and reason.

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    Fat : It's not a rule. It's inherent to tautologous nature of System of Logic.

    There is not an author making this claim ?

    Because you are the only guy i saw making that statement.

    As far as i know, "-" is not "------------------"

    The fact that a cell is so tiny that it cannot be seemed by naked eye, does not lead that an aggregate of billions of cells are as tiny.

    Can you help me on it ?

    Who of the authors that you read, makes this claim ?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “We disagree on this point : if "X" has a property "P", then all aggregate made of "X's" has the property "P"

    No, you have it all backwards. There is NO disagreement whatsoever. Disagreements and agreements are OPINIONS. Such subjectivities have nothing to do with the objective underlying issue of this discussion: Systems of Logic.

    From the tautological bounds of a System of Logic, yes, this always holds! Always, always, always!! You cannot fight it or refute it using tautologies.

    If an air molecule is invisible, then isn’t air invisible? Surely it is in accordance with the tautologous nature of Logic. If you don’t want it to be the case in some other scenario, then you will have to add new sets of RULES in your new System of Logic to deal with specific scenarios. Now you modified Classical Logic by adding new axioms. Do you understand what Logic is all about? If not, please read my other articles on Logic.

    .

    “Have you a SPECIFIC source of this rule ?”

    It’s not a rule. It’s inherent to the tautologous nature of Systems of Logic.

    Remember: Systems of Logic only DERIVE conclusions from pre-set rules and premises…..they don’t analyze them. Logic 101. Analysis requires us to use a non-derivational method of reasoning, critical thinking and analysis OUTSIDE of tautologic Systems of Logic. This is what we call Rational Analysis and Reasoning. You need to learn the difference between Logic (petty derivation) and Reasoning (critical thinking and rational analysis). They are not synonyms. Never the twain shall meet. I already explained this to you several times.

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    Fat.

    We disagree on this point :

    if "X" has a property "P", then all aggregate made of "X's" has the property "P"

    Have you a SPECIFIC source of this rule ?

    Because i searched so much, for it. And found ZERO results.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Whether an object like "-" is indivisible has nothing to do with properties or logic. This is purely an assumption. You assumed this to be the case. Furthermore, your derivational logic will derive that any object built with "-" is indivisible UNLESS you place explicit case scenario rules to circumvent this for objects like "-" and for human cells. So you need more premises and case scenarios and your logic is different than the human cell logic shown here. The point is that you need to go outside of logic to reason these rules by way of observation, etc. and then insert them as logic rules AFTER the fact.

    The point remains: logic is powerless to make these decisions for you. You need to circumvent logic in order to make these decisions. Logic is just an after-the-fact exercise in pure meaningless tautology. Logic has zero reasoning power.

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    "-" is indivisible, for another example.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "LESS THAN" is a relation which necessarily invokes TWO objects a human uses to make a comparison. This is not a PROPERTY by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    "-" is less than "--", for example.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    And what properties does it have?

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    Fer : You are saying that

    (1) If a single instance of C has a property P

    (2) Then any set of any number of C MUST HAVE the property P ?

    Fat : From the tautological bounds of a System of Logic, yes, this always holds.

    "-" has properties that "------" has not.

    Is it not clear ?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Really ? you are saying that

    (1) If a single instance of C has a property P

    (2) Then any set of any number of C MUST HAVE the property P ?

    Maybe there are Formal System where these statements holds. But there are a lot of other where they don't”

    From the tautological bounds of a System of Logic, yes, this always holds. Remember: Systems of Logic only DERIVE conclusions…..they don’t analyze them. Analysis requires us to use a non-derivational method of reasoning, like Physics.

    .

    “And not all "Cells in general" satisfy the property "Is invisible to naked eyes". Chicken's eggs has an instance of "Cells in general" into. A very visible instance.”

    That may be the case, but you can only REASON this with Physics, not with derivational Systems of Logic, understand?

    .

    “But i am not talking about 'interpretation' nor 'analysis'. I am talking about premises that doesn't DERIVE the conclusion. “

    Premises are statements that just make assumptions within the System of Logic. All assumptions are used to derive a conclusion without contradicting the premise. Premises that aren’t used in the conclusion are utterly worthless and add no value to the System of Logic.

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    Fat : They lead to the same derived conclusion because cells in general must have the same property when they are together as an aggregate according to logical derivation.

    Really ? you are saying that

    (1) If a single instance of C has a property P

    (2) Then any set of any number of C MUST HAVE the property P ?

    Maybe there are Formal System where these statements holds.

    But there are a lot of other where they don't

    And not all "Cells in general" satisfy the property "Is invisible to naked eyes". Chicken's eggs has an instance of "Cells in general" into. A very visible instance.

    But it doesn't matter.

    The properties of a set of numbers will not be the same properties of "Numbers in general" by derivation.

    Just because "Numbers in general" is not the same of "Sets in general".

    Thus, Format A is really invalid.

    (A) I(C) and (H = G) ==} I(H)

    Just because C is not G.

    There is no inference here.

    Plug these values, and see yourself

    (a) C : Letters, in general

    (b) G : Aggregate of C

    (c) H : Words, in general

    (d) I = Is pronounced in a single syllable

    Well. The "Format A" doesn't hold. Not for ALL instances of G.

    Because "Aggregate of C" doesn't inherit properties from "Letters, in general". Some properties will be the same. But by coincidence. Not by "logical derivation".

    In short :

    G is not equal C. It is related to C, but is not C.

    Fat : Try to understand that ‘logical validity’ necessarily deals with the axioms and premises which DERIVE a conclusion. It doesn’t deal with the ‘interpretation’ or ‘analysis’ of that conclusion.

    Ok, Fat. This point is really a revelation to me. I agree. But i am not talking about 'interpretation' nor 'analysis'. I am talking about premises that doesn't DERIVE the conclusion. And premises in "Format A" does not.

    OBS : Sorry again for my poor english.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Format A is not valid.”

    Try to understand that ‘logical validity’ necessarily deals with the axioms and premises which DERIVE a conclusion. It doesn’t deal with the ‘interpretation’ or ‘analysis’ of that conclusion. Logic has NO analytical power….only derivational inference, nothing else. If we say that atoms have some property, then it logically follows (by derivation) that the aggregate of atoms exhibit the same property. In reality this may or may not be the case. In reality, we must forget logic and analyze this problem from a Physics perspective.

    Physics has to do with definitions, Hypothesis and Theory, not Tautological Systems of Logic which are purely DERIVATIONAL. Understand now?

    .

    “unless we define "C = G", which lead us to "Format B" itself”

    They lead to the same derived conclusion because cells in general must have the same property when they are together as an aggregate according to logical derivation. That they don’t necessarily have this property requires us to go outside of logic and into Physics to further analyze the specific situation of cells, atoms, etc.

    .

    “I am not talking about reality. I am talking about ASSUMPTION and INFERENCE. “

    Yes, that’s right. Logical Inference = Logical Derivation. Logical Inference has nothing to do with analysis in the situational or physical sense. Logic is about derivation, only.

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    Hi fat.

    First of all, i need to say that this hub is awesome.

    I saw the link before your answer.

    Yet the cell/body argument apply only in reduced situations. Lets see it in these two formats, because i don't know what are your definitions.

    #Format A

    -------------------------------------

    P1 : C has property I

    P2 : H = G

    C1 : Therefore, H has property I

    -------------------------------------

    #Format B

    -------------------------------------

    P1 : G has property I

    P2 : H = G

    C1 : H has property I

    -------------------------------------

    You can plug any non repetitive definition to the letters. I am assuming that :

    (1) C means "Cells in general". A instance of a single cell.

    (2) G means "Aggregation of more than one cell", in general

    (3) H means "Human Body in general". Any instance of a single humam body.

    (4) I = Invisible to naked eye.

    But you can plug other values, for example (an "used" example)

    (1) C means Atoms, in general

    (2) G means Aggregation of Atoms, in general.

    (3) H means Air, in general.

    (4) I = Invisible to naked eye

    But the meaning of the letters has no influence here. All that matters is the dedutive reasoning result.

    Format A is not valid.

    Format B is valid but no sound. It is valid IF we agree that P1 and P2 has value TRUE

    We can see the inference as

    (a) IF (P1 is TRUE)

    (b) IF (P2 is TRUE)

    (c) THEN C1 is TRUE

    Or else, representing "X has property P" as P(X), and "if A then B" as "A ==} B", we have :

    (Format A) I(C) and (H = G) ==} I(H)

    (Format B) I(G) and (H = G) ==} I(H)

    As i see, "Format A" is not valid, unless we define "C = G", which lead us to "Format B" itself. And "format B" is sound only if I(G) holds and (H = G) holds. I am not talking about reality. I am talking about ASSUMPTION and INFERENCE. "Format A" is invalid and "Format B" depends on substantiation of the assumptions.

    Sorry form my poor english. I can read well, but become confused with grammar rules when write.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Sorry for the delay, Fernando, your response is here:

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/What-is-L...

  • Fernando Barbosa profile image

    Fernando Barbosa 3 years ago

    I posted a comment before, bu looks like some problem occurred. I will repost it here.

    You said :

    "Here is an example of a logically consistent, sound and logically valid deductive argument that cannot be refuted using logic:

    Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.

    Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.

    Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye."

    There are two ways of reading your argument.

    #INTERPRETATION A

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consider :

    (1) C = cells, in general (meaning all instances of a single cell)

    (2) G = An aggregation of cells

    (3) H = The human body, in general (meaning all instances of a single body)

    Thus, your argument can be rearranged as :

    P1 : C is invisible to naked eye

    P2 : H = G

    C1 : Therefore, H is invisible to naked eye.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not sound. Actually it is not a valid argument, as you claim. It is a sample of bad logic reasoning.

    But, maybe you are trying to say that :

    #INTERPRETATION B

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consider :

    (1) C = An aggregation of cells (meaning all instances of these aggregation)

    (2) H = The human body (meaning all instances of hb)

    Then,

    P1 : C is invisible to naked eye

    P2 : H = C

    C1 : Therefore, H is invisible to naked eye

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, this version is logically correct. But it is not a sound argument. P1 must be TRUE for all instances of C. And it is not. Some C are invisible to naked eye, and some are not.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Robert: “Trust me, I have no interest in misrepresenting you. As a Christian, my main concern is for truth. Purposeful misrepresentations are dishonest, and would only serve to undermine my own world view.”

    Robert, you are so full doggy poop as I will expose your trolling right now…..

    .

    “If this statement is not absolutely true, in what situation might it be false?”

    For the THIRD time….what is true/false is YOUR OPINION as explained in this article I am posting to your for the THIRD time already….

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-...

    .

    Ignoring this article is not an argument…..and I quote:

    “But since truth ultimately stems from the validation of propositions, it necessitates an observer who must VALIDATE the proposition before they can label it as ‘true’ or ‘false’. It is obvious that the word “truth” is ultimately dependent on a dynamic process that an observer must perform before labeling a proposition as true/false. This process of validation is called PROOF. A proposition labeled as true/false is always dependent on a human observer’s ability to use their magical powers to validate it as such.

    Q: So how do humans validate or prove a statement as truth? What magical powers do they use?

    A: Their subjective and limited sensory system!

    Since the concept of truth is ultimately dependent on a human’s subjective use of their limited sensory system, it is easy to understand why all truths are subjective; i.e. opinions. Truth is an observer-dependent human-related concept that is inherently subjective. As such, it necessarily resolves to none other than opinion! This limited anthropocentric concept cannot possibly be objective. What is TRUE to you, is a LIE to your neighbor! Truths are inherently biased. Truth is what is dear to YOUR heart & soul, only. For all intents and purposes, you can use the word “truth” as a synonym to the word “opinion” in every scenario, and you will not change the context or meaning of your dissertation. Just try it and see for yourself.

    Remember: TRUTH = OPINION.”

    .

    LOL….take that right up your bunghole! It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to refute it.

    So to obviously answer your Q, no, my statement is not “ABSOLUTE TRUTH” = “ABSOLUTE OPINION” because:

    1) The concept of ‘absolute’ is self-refuting as explained THREE times to you already! It’s an oxymoron.

    2) OPINIONS have nothing to do with reality or this article. This article has offered objective explanations which are IMPOSSIBLE for you to refute, that’s why you continue to troll. Opinions are easy to refute and that’s why you have no refutations….because there are no opinions here…QED!

    .

    Robert: “Unobserved particles exist as waves”

    Fat: “Impossible! A particle is an object.”

    Exactly, now you’re learning! The term ‘particle’ unequivocally refers to an OBJECT. The term ‘wave’ unequivocally alludes to a CONCEPT, a verb; i.e. the motion of an object. Never the twain shall meet.

    See….when you don’t understand the MEANING of the words you use (absolute, truth, particle, wave) and you can’t DEFINE them, you just keep chasing your tail around in unethical trolling circles.

    .

    "Alternatively, you can contradict my argument by giving a single example of an absolute."

    Yes, please post a SINGLE statement that is ABSOLUTE. I dare ya….I DOUBLE-DOG dare ya…. since the DEFINITION OF THE TERM ABSOLUTE IS SELF-REFUTING AS EXPLAINED 3 TIMES ALREADY! You cannot even attack my explanation as to why ‘absolute’ is impossible and an oxymoron…..what a pathetic loser!

    .

    "There are no absolutes."

    Bingo again! You understand full well why there no absolutes,…. that’s why you cannot attack my explanation. But your soul refuses to accept it. Go talk to a Priest in the confession box….make sure to kneel down first and open wide….he’ll take good care of ya!

    .

    “Challenge offered. Challenge accepted. Challenge met.”

    Exactly! That’s what happens when you have no argument. I met your challenge to explain WHY there are no absolutes. So much so, than even YOU admitted in your post that…..and I quote: "There are no absolutes."

    .

    And now you’re trolling is over, Robert. What you actually came here to do has been exposed….

    Robert: “Trust me, I have MUCH interest in misrepresenting you. As a Christian, my main concern is for LIES & MISREPRESENTATIONS TO BRAINWASH OTHERS. Purposeful misrepresentations are HONEST in my Religion, and would only serve to ADVANCE my own world view.”

  • profile image

    3 years ago

    Fat,

    Thanks for the reply. I'll make this one real short.

    First point:

    You stated: "It cannot be absolutely true because there are NO absolutes!"

    I responded: If this statement is not absolutely true, in what situation might it be false?

    You responded: My statement is neither true or false. What is true is YOUR opinion, and is false to your neighbor. Got it?

    Okay Fat, I got it. Now let's apply it.

    I stated: “Unobserved particles exist as waves”

    You responded: Impossible! A particle is an object.

    I respond: My statement “Unobserved particles exist as waves” is neither true or false. What is true is YOUR opinion, and is false to your neighbor. Got it? So don't tell me it's impossible.

    ___________

    Second Point:

    You stated: "Alternatively, you can contradict my argument by giving a single example of an absolute."

    I gave you the example: "There are no absolutes."

    You responded: "Exactly!"

    Challenge offered. Challenge accepted. Challenge met.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    GCC: “FF, all the capital letters you use make it sound like you are in denial.”

    Ohhhh, ok…I’ll take your word that the capital letters YOU use means that YOU are in denial.

    Hey GCC, can you believe that you managed to be in the 10% of the self-refuting blundering fools out there who PWN themselves on the very first post? Congratulations….you get the Idiot of the Month Award!

    .

    George: “By saying A=A is repetitive, you are admitting that A=A is true.”

    First of all, I’d like to thank idiot GCC for being in denial for the SECOND time in a row because only a coward like him would change his name and post more nonsense. But now he only uses ONE capital letter in his name, which means that he’s in denial for the THIRD time. Wow….what a LOSER! Can you believe that you are in the 1% of idiots who managed to PWN themselves on their second post as well? Congratulations….now you get the Idiot of the Year Award!

    .

    Hey idiot GCC, that ‘A=A’ is repetitive has nothing to do with YOUR opinion of what is true. Your neighbor will look at ‘A=A’ and he will confess that it isn’t repetitive and hence it’s FALSE. Whom shall the audience believe….a self-refuting idiotic blundering foolish coward like you, or your highly respectable and humble neighbor?

    Should we flip a coin on the issue?

    Should we ask a Levitating Yogi to decide?

    Should we ask Obama or Putin to decide?

    Should we ask Stephen Hawking to run an experiment?

    Should we ask an Atheist, a Philosopher and a Priest to tell us the real truth, the whole truth so help them God?

    Should we ask a genius with an IQ of 250+ to decide for us?

    Regardless…..truth, lies, wisdom, experiment, subjectivity, authority, popularity and other such OPINIONS play no role here. This is an objective issue falling squarely on the DEFINITION of the term ‘repetition’.

    Repetition: multiple instances

    ‘A = A’ satisfies the definition of ‘repetition with flying colors. It is repetitive BY DEFINITION, by language, by context, by meaning irrespective of whether a self-refuting idiot like yourself comes here to give his OPINION (i.e. true/false) on the issue. And because it is repetitive it is also RHETORIC by definition because it has no meaning whatsoever. It is IMPOSSIBLE to convey meaning (i.e. a concept) without invoking AT LEAST TWO objects. Got it, Bimbo?

    Those who can’t define and just whine make themselves look like idiots! We learn how to define in primary school; usually Grade 2 or 3. Were you playing hooky in primary school?

  • profile image

    George 3 years ago

    @ff:

    You said that A=A is a repetitive statement, which is true. However, two things can only be repetitive if they both mean exactly the same thing. By saying A=A is repetitive, you are admitting that A=A is true.

  • profile image

    GCC 3 years ago

    FF, all the capital letters you use make it sound like you are in denial...

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Robert,

    “we know of no society who's reasoning was not governed by the three laws of logic recognized by contemporary philosophers and logicians.”

    You need to get out of the house more, Robert. THIS society’s reasoning isn’t governed by any logic. Not the government…..not the court system, etc. etc. If you claim that society, including courts, are governed by logic….AND that logic is absolute, then there wouldn’t be any innocent people convicted….and there wouldn’t be any guilty people set free. Logic is used courts, so this is an epic failure of society governed by logic! So obviously your statement is contradictory. Society is definitely NOT governed by your alleged logic.

    .

    “my understanding of QM is that particles are not in multiple locations at the same time.”

    The multi-verse of mainstream Physics has logic that decrees YOU are in multiple universal locations at the same time. QM’s uncertainty principle states that your car exists AND doesn’t exist at the same time…..that a cat is dead and alive at the same time. This KILLS your bogus absolutes laws of logic, got it?

    .

    “Unobserved particles exist as waves”

    Impossible! A particle is an object.

    Object: that which has shape

    There is no such thing as ‘a’ wave. The grammatical noun ‘wave’ is not a noun (i.e. object) of reality. It’s a noun ‘term’ for grammatical correctness only, not for semantical (i.e. meaning) purposes. Wave is a VERB; i.e. what an object DOES, not what an object IS. All usage of the term ‘wave’ has an underlying ONTOLOGY. For example, an ocean wave alludes to the object WATER that moves up/down. Wave is a CONCEPT alluding to motion, not an object.

    Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

    As you can see, logic and its opinionated laws are utterly USELESS when it comes to reasoning. To reason you need a brain and critical thinking skills….never human-invented laws. Reasoning does NOT invoke man-made laws. It only invokes critical thinking and rationality.

    .

    “But when observed, the wave “

    You cannot observe ‘a’ wave. At best you only observe the OBJECT that waves…like the water or the flag. This is so basic I can’t believe it eludes you. Understand? Your laws of logic are failing you right now!

    .

    “I'll happily stand corrected, but what does the behavior of quantum objects have to do with existence on the macro level?”

    LOL….this is the very issue that CONTRADICTS your claim of absolutes. If your bogus laws of logic aren’t universally applicable (i.e. don’t apply in the quantum micro level), then what the heck makes them ‘absolute’?? Regardless, absolutes are impossible as explained in the article I referenced.

    .

    “The relevant issue is not the law's pedigree, but whether or not the principle is a prerequisite for intelligibility. It stands or falls on it's own merits.”

    And in accordance with your “intelligibility” requirement, your alleged law ‘A is A’ falls and fails on its own merits because it’s rhetoric and meaningless. It is contradictory as explained in luxurious detail in the article I reference. Did you even read it? Ignorance is not an argument.

    .

    Fat: "‘A is A’ was invented by Religionists to prove God."

    Robert: “Genetic Fallacy.”

    There is no genetic fallacy here. It is a fact that A is A was invented by Religionists to prove God. Read your Bible….I am that I am! This one-liner was graduated into law by Religionists and peddled as some alleged axiom of logic, which it CLEARLY ISN’T BECAUSE IT IS CONTRADICTORY AS I EXPLAINED IN A WHOLE ARTICLE ON IT. Do you understand?

    .

    “The law of identity is only concerned with the *identity* of 'A', not its relationship to 'A' or anything else.”

    My dear Robert, please pay attention: ‘identity’ is a CONCEPT. As a concept, it MUST NECESSARILY relate a minimum of 2 objects. You cannot escape this devastating fact.

    Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE BY DEFINITION for any concept to not relate a minimum of TWO somethings, got it?

    .

    “What "system" do you participate in where the two "valid" axioms of Classical Logic may be ignored without consequence?”

    One is: Quantum Logic!!!!

    More: Intuitionist’s logic and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, Boolean logic and other non-binary true/false Systems of Logic. You need to educate yourself on the basics of Systems of Logic, Robert. They ALL have their own laws!

    Fat: "It cannot be absolutely true because there are NO absolutes!"

    Robert: If this statement is not absolutely true, in what situation might it be false?

    My statement is neither true or false. What is true is YOUR opinion, and is false to your neighbor. Got it? Here, educate yourself on WHY TRUTH IS OPINION and stop posting contradictions.

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-...

    A statement is either rational or irrational. That there are NO absolutes is rational and cannot be refuted because the term ‘absolute’ is a CONCEPT and it relates a minimum of TWO objects. Ahhh….but Absolute is the opposite of Relative, so what is absolute MUST stand on its own without relations. Ergo the CONTRADICTION!!!!! The concept of ‘absolute’ is self-refuting and an impossible gibberish concept. Understand?

    Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects

    .

    Robert: There are no absolutes.

    Exactly!

    .

    “As a Christian, my main concern is for truth.”

    Religion is predicated on OPINIONS. Truth always resolves to opinion. Your Religion has nothing to do with reality. If you wish to discuss REALITY here, you must talk intelligibly, rationally and not spew self-refuting statements, specifically, any statement that asserts ‘absolutes’, got it?

  • profile image

    Robert Campanaro 3 years ago

    Robert: I'm personally unaware of any society where the laws which govern its thinking would permit its members to make any of the following statements: My car is in the parking lot and at the same time, my car is not in the parking lot.

    Fat: "Then you haven’t heard of Quantum Mechanics. The laws of Quantum Logic dictate that your car can be somewhere and not be there at the same time."

    Robert: I'm failing to see the connection between Quantum Mechanics and the fact that in all of recorded history, we know of no society who's reasoning was not governed by the three laws of logic recognized by contemporary philosophers and logicians.

    As for Quantum Mechanics nullifying the laws of logic, I'm not a physicist so I'm willing to be corrected on this point, but my understanding of QM is that particles are not in multiple locations at the same time. Unobserved particles exist as waves of probability with respect to location. But when observed, the wave function collapses at which point their position becomes certain, and the chances of them being anywhere else become zero. Until then, particles don't really exist in any location. Again, I'll happily stand corrected, but what does the behavior of quantum objects have to do with existence on the macro level? In the world you and I live in, the statement "My car is in the parking lot, and my car is not in the parking lot" is contradictory. It also makes no sense to say my car is *sort of* in the parking lot. Nor would it make sense to say may car is my cat.

    Fat: "Actually, A=A (A is A) is not even an axiom or law of Classical Logic. Aristotle only posited the first two laws."

    Robert: The relevant issue is not the law's pedigree, but whether or not the principle is a prerequisite for intelligibility. It stands or falls on it's own merits.

    Fat: "‘A is A’ was invented by Religionists to prove God."

    Robert: Genetic Fallacy.

    Fat: "In fact, ‘A is A’ is self-refuting; i.e. contradictory as a statement because it is impossible to relate anything to itself."

    Robert: The law of identity is only concerned with the *identity* of 'A', not its relationship to 'A' or anything else.

    Fat: "The 2 valid axioms of Classical Logic are only applicable within that system....the Classical context. Outside of that, they are not applicable."

    Robert: What "system" do you participate in where the two "valid" axioms of Classical Logic may be ignored without consequence?

    Fat: "It cannot be absolutely true because there are NO absolutes!"

    Robert: If this statement is not absolutely true, in what situation might it be false?

    Fat: "There are NO statements qualified as being “absolute” or “true” in this article."

    Robert: If nothing in this article is true, then why did you write it? Why did you suggest I read it? If this article contains no qualified statements of truth, what is its practical value?

    Fat: "Alternatively, you can contradict my argument by giving a single example of an absolute."

    Robert: There are no absolutes.

    Fat: "But please, misrepresenting me has no place in an intellectual discussion."

    Trust me, I have no interest in misrepresenting you. As a Christian, my main concern is for truth. Purposeful misrepresentations are dishonest, and would only serve to undermine my own world view.

    Thanks.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Robert,

    “It cannot be absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.”

    Of course! I never said it was and you cannot quote me to that effect. It cannot be absolutely true because there are NO absolutes! Did you even bother to read this article to understand exactly WHY there are no absolutes? I mean, you need to understand the underlying details before you jump the gun.

    https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-are...

    .

    Fat: "It is impossible to validate any axiom or proposition to be absolute."

    Robert: “Except for the proposition being advance in this article. Correct?”

    Fat: "The term “absolute” is a contradictory and impossible concept..."

    Robert: “Unless of course the term is being applied to any truth that might be apprehended by reading this article. Then it's perfectly consistent and its possibilities abound. Correct?”

    Wrong and Wrong! There are NO statements qualified as being “absolute” or “true” in this article. You cannot copy/paste a single one qualified as such. A misunderstanding of this article or a strawman by you is not an argument. You still don’t understand the basics. You need to spend some time reading the article instead of just the title and parroting the party line. There is an underlying argument behind both those statements you quoted by you missed or ignored it for some strange reason…and I hope the reason has nothing to do with trolling.

    If you wish to attack my argument and the case I make about the impossibility of absolutes, please do so. Alternatively, you can contradict my argument by giving a single example of an absolute. But please, misrepresenting me has no place in an intellectual discussion.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Robert,

    “I'm personally unaware of any society where the laws which govern its thinking would permit its members to make any of the following statements: My car is in the parking lot and at the same time, my car is not in the parking lot.”

    Then you haven’t heard of Quantum Mechanics. The laws of Quantum Logic dictate that your car can be somewhere and not be there at the same time.

    Classical Logic or Logical Absolutes are NOT applicable here because all 3 axioms fail, according to the Quantum system of logic (Copenhagen Principle). Also, light is purported to be a particle AND a wave at the same time (wavicle), which explicitly kills the Law of Non-Contradiction and the Law of Identity.

    Consider Intuitionist Logic. In this system of logic, the law of excluded middle is not applicable.

    In Aristotle's Classical laws of logic, there is NO Law of Identity (A is A).

    And in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus system of logic, which is constructed around seven basic propositional axioms, there is NO law of Identity, NO Law of non-contradiction and NO law of excluded-middle (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wittgenstein/). More so, it posits that there are no absolute truths because every statement can be denied; what is true for you, may not be true for me (http://paradigm-shift-21st-century.nl/mini-tractat...

    And there you have some of the many examples where Logic in NOT absolute....where the Classical A=A, LNC and excluded-middle FAIL.

    .

    “What makes the axiom a=a absolute is the impossibility of the contrary.”

    Actually, A=A (A is A) is not even an axiom or law of Classical Logic. Aristotle only posited the first two laws. ‘A is A’ was invented by Religionists to prove God. The earliest reference we have is from Antonius Andreas (1280-1320).

    In fact, ‘A is A’ is self-refuting; i.e. contradictory as a statement because it is impossible to relate anything to itself. A relation is a concept and all concepts relate a minimum of 2 objects – never one. This is explained in detail here:

    https://hubpages.com/education/Law-of-Identity-A-i...

    .

    The only option available is to BELIEVE in the axioms is because logic - any logic - is systemic. It forms a system of rules (axioms), along with a derivational inference tree from a valid starting point. The 2 valid axioms of Classical Logic are only applicable within that system....the Classical context. Outside of that, they are not applicable. Therefore, they are NOT absolute…only BELIEVED.

    You have some reading to do in order to get your feet wet in Formal Systems of Logic. I always get my students to start with Wiki:

    From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

    “Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does NOT deal with truth in the ABSOLUTE sense, as for instance a metaphysician does. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system.”

  • Robert Campanaro profile image

    Robert Campanaro 3 years ago

    "If Classical Logic is not compatible with all of the hundreds, if not thousands, of systems of logic humans invented....then just what the heck makes its axioms absolute? Can someone please answer this question in the comments section?"

    I'll do my best. I'm personally unaware of any society where the laws which govern its thinking would permit its members to make any of the following statements:

    1. My car is in the parking lot and at the same time, my car is not in the parking lot.

    2. I sort of have the planet Mars in my pocket.

    3. My cat is my dog.

    I don't know what other systems of logic have ever been "invented", other than those recognized by contemporary philosophers and logicians. What makes the axiom a=a absolute is the impossibility of the contrary.

    "...there are no absolutes.....absolute truth is impossible."

    This statement is self refuting. It cannot be absolutely true that there are no absolute truths.

    "It is impossible to validate any axiom or proposition to be absolute."

    Except for the proposition being advance in this article. Correct?

    "The term “absolute” is a contradictory and impossible concept..."

    Unless of course the term is being applied to any truth that might be apprehended by reading this article. Then it's perfectly consistent and its possibilities abound. Correct?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    But of course, the COWARDS who come here to peddle their God-like omnipotent terms, like KNOWLEDGE, TRUTH and PROOF, quickly realize that not a single idiot Philosopher in the past 5000 years has been able to DEFINE these terms without contradictions. The idiots who peddle these terms in a half-witted attempt to look smart, have NO clue what they mean and are merely mumbling gibberish in front of the mirror.

    Bimbo 'e' realized this from the get-to when the little COWARD was grabbed by his pencil-neck, slammed into a corner and asked TWICE to DEFINE the term that makes or breaks his argument. He resorted to LYING and running away from the debate with his tail between his legs!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    e: When I question you about this your replies so far amount to...“Nobody knows, but it just is man, it just is....trust me, ok?”

    One thing people don't tolerate is LIARS and COWARDS. You have ZERO arguments and ZERO responses to my simple questions, that's why you LIE and invent strawmen statements which I never posted. And all this to justify your Religion. Another one bites the dust!

  • profile image

    3 years ago

    "Reality is observer-independent and not axiomatic". When I question you about this your replies so far amount to...“Nobody knows, but it just is man, it just is....trust me, ok?”

    "It is impossible to argue and reason..."

    So your statement "Reality is observer-independent and not axiomatic" is merely a belief? It's OK to admit that.

    You see you have not rid yourself of a belief system when you rid yourself of atheism...you still have further to go my friend...belief is still infecting your thought. Your claims about reality are unfounded. Keep at it...you have come a good distance so far!!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Fat: "Reality is observer-independent and not axiomatic; i.e. reality is objective."

    e: “The assumption I make is that you are an observer.”

    Bingo! There’s the problem right off the bat: you “assumed”; i.e. you extrapolated your OWN meaning from my statement, rather than taking it LITERALLY as it was meant to be taken and understood.

    .

    “How are you able to stand outside of observation to make the claim above about reality?”

    You whaaaaat? Where in the Lord’s sweet name do you see anything having to do with OBSERVATION or with the human sensory system in my statement? Perhaps you need to upgrade the prescription on your glasses. Regardless, going off in an irrelevant tangent in your assumption is neither an argument nor a valid question.

    Reality is NOT dependent on humans as the Earth, Moon, Sun and all the other matter in the Universe existed before any human was here. Obviously reality in all its glory goes about its business in an observer-independent manner without asking permission from a petty human. Furthermore, reality does NOT depend on human-premised axioms/rules. Rules are made by dictators. Reality pisses on dictators! Reality has nothing to do with SUBJECTIVE sensory observations and petty emotional rules. Reality is the epitome of OBJECTIVITY.

    Of course, in case you didn’t notice, this is a conceptual issue we reason critically...not a “claim” we assert by use of our sensory system, nor by dictating axiomatic rules, understand?

    It is impossible to argue and reason that matter wouldn’t exist without a human or that atoms need permission from a human to exist and interact with each other….especially since we are assembled from that very same matter in question. Reasoning 101….nothing to do with Observation 101, got it?

    .

    “I am simply asking how you came to your knowledge ….”

    You asked an invalid question as I explained. And as far as this ‘knowledge’ bogus term you keep throwing around like a purse goes: you haven’t the slightest clue in Hell what this term means because you completely dodged my ultra-simple question posed to you – to simply define it! So every time you throw this bogus term around, you are merely chasing your tail in circles.

  • profile image

    3 years ago

    "Reality is observer-independent and not axiomatic...."

    The assumption I make is that you are an observer. How are you able to stand outside of observation to make the claim above about reality? I am not claiming any knowledge of reality...I am simply asking how you came to your knowledge of reality being "observer-independent and not axiomatic".

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    e,

    “How can anyone claim to know an observerless moment?”

    Just tell the audience what you mean by this omnipotent term “KNOWLEDGE” (i.e. to know) and then you’ll have the answer to your pressing question. In fact, I guarantee you will.

    Well, let's see if you can define 'knowledge' rationally for us. What are you gonna say knowledge is:

    a) What a person has memorized (i.e. information) from various sources?

    b) What an authority has told us?

    c) What the majority of people believe?

    d) What we learn from personal experience?

    e) What one has proven to himself (i.e. time-specific validation via one’s sensory system)?

    Don’t keep the audience in suspense any longer, please fill in the blanks….

    Knowledge: _______________

  • profile image

    3 years ago

    "Reality is observer-independent and not axiomatic; i.e. reality is objective."

    How can anyone claim to know an observerless moment?

  • profile image

    Ant K 3 years ago

    Those 6 tasks are invaluable to me, thanks very much for such a clear outline of what's required. I'm really excited to look into this now after all this time of fumbling around in the dark. I have a general understanding of 1-2-3, but I'm going to start to really look into 4-5-6 as well to make sure I have all the underpinnings for understanding reality and rationality.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Ant K,....Once you get past the empty doctrine of Atheism, you'll start to understand why there are no Theists or Atheists. There are only dumb humans and rational humans. The dumb ones will predicate their lives on belief or disbelief/skepticism.....and the rational ones will gain an understanding of reality and have the intellectual capacity to:

    1) Define the crucial terms of their presentation unambiguously, objectively and without contradictions.

    2) Explain why creation is impossible, and hence all Creator gods are impossible (a fact the went over Judge's head).

    3) Explain why the concept of Truth resolves to opinion and ultimately belief (a fact the went over Judge's head).

    4) Explain why light is so fast.

    5) Explain the physical mechanism behind light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.

    6) Rationally explain the retarded observations known as black holes, dark matter, warped space, dilated time, GPS clock synchronization, Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Jump, Higgs, etc.

    The only requirement: you need a brain and the willingness to use it! That's why all Theists, Atheists and Mathemagicians are automatically excluded.

  • profile image

    Ant K 3 years ago

    Thank you for your response fatfist. I really appreciate it. You've helped me a great deal, not just from your answer here but reading all your contributions on hubpages. I've heard and read over time, lots of information about science, maths, philosophy, theism, atheism, skepticism, but every time I thought I was close to an understanding of reality, I'd reach a dead end. I've only been reading stuff on here for a few hours, but I'm now getting why I've always ended up with the feeling that things were unresolved. I'm going to leave all that uncertainty behind and focus on making sure I understand how to explain, not how to believe.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Ant K,

    “Johanan Raatz?”

    I don’t remember him as I haven’t watched the AE show since I thought I was an Atheist many many years ago.

    “He has arguments relating to things like 'Omega Point Simulation', 'Introspective Argument', 'Digital Physics'”

    Ah ok, so he has no clue what reality is. He’s yet another Mathematical Religionist, no different than Creationists Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins who claims that a God could exist. But not the God of the Bible because He’s too popular on this planet with 3 Religions under his belt.

    ‎@1:39:20 In typical atheist fashion, Krauss hates the God of the Bible, but like a Theist he admits that a god of a divine intelligence is plausible for the creation of the universe. He claims that Science is compatible with Deism, but not with Monotheism. These ex-theists will never divorce themselves from gods, worship and magic!

    “I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! The question is, is there evidence for that? That’s what we tried to debate. So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. And it may, it may indeed, ultimately, we may find that it’s required. But the relation between that and the specific God that some people believe in here, and the specific God that other people believe in here, is obviously a problem, because not everyone can be right. And everyone believes this fervently, most people who are fundamentalists in their religion, believe this fervently, that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. And they can’t all be right. And the point is that they’re probably all wrong. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Lawrence Krauss

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQYW8cQuBE

    .

    “Is he in the same boat as every other theist/atheist/agnostic, as in, his arguments are just as irrational?”

    Exactly!

    “Can his arguments be countered just as effectively with what you use in your articles/comments?”

    The only argument possible is one that is rational (i.e. can be visualized and put on the big screen as a movie with all the objects performing events) and non-contradictory as specified by the Scientific Method.

    Hypothesis: all the actors (i.e. objects) that will take part in performing the event (i.e. light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, etc.)

    Theory: A rational explanation of the PHYSICAL MECHANISM by which said event happened in reality.

    Everything else is a non-argument and results in the proponent chasing their tail in circles with contradictions, desperation, frustration, deception and dirty underhanded tactics as witnessed HERE on a daily! This stuff belongs in Religion (i.e. Theism, Atheism, Mathematics), not in Science.

    There is NO magic or authority invoked in my methodology. Just rational Physics that cannot be contradicted. Like I said, it’s not business as usual for the Theist, Atheist and Mathematician coming here to sell their ignorance and irrationality. Those who wish to learn Science and Physics can join our discussion in Rational Scientific Method on facebook. Those wishing to keep their delicate Religion of endless contradictions can stay in their Church.

  • profile image

    Ant K 3 years ago

    Fatfist, have you heard of Johanan Raatz? He has a youtube channel. You mentioned you've seen the atheist experience show, he's called it a few times.

    I'm not going to pretend I understand his arguments well, but he's basically a theist. He has arguments relating to things like 'Omega Point Simulation', 'Introspective Argument', 'Digital Physics'.

    Is he in the same boat as every other theist/atheist/agnostic, as in, his arguments are just as irrational? Can his arguments be countered just as effectively with what you use in your articles/comments?

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    Goodbye.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “ Moon can only be moon and not Earth.”

    Nope! Humans could have named that satellite in the sky Earth and this planet Moon. Labels and identities are arbitrary and are set according to human agreed standards or consensus; i.e. they are subjective and irrelevant!

    The only thing objective is that an object has shape….that’s it.

    If all the other objects in the universe were to vanish right this second, the lone Moon object would have shape and NO other property. It wouldn't even have a name "Moon" as there is nobody around to name it and keep a record of such irrelevant labels.

    A lone object only has ONE property: shape. There are no others….and definitely no identity. Identity is a concept that requires a MINIMUM of 2 objects to define it.

    Concept: a relation between 2 or more objects.

    A lone Moon has NO identity as there is no other object (i.e. human) to form such a relation!

    .

    “but that's all nit-picky shit.”

    LOL….this is what Academia, Science, Philosophy and critical thinking are all about: precision in definition, rational explanations and utmost OBJECTIVITY.

    But a stupid illiterate like you wouldn’t know because you have NO education and just came here to troll instead of having an ethical honest intellectual conversation.

    Your trolling is over!

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    Sorry but yes it is. The truth about the lOI won't go away. You have perverted it by removing it from it's context were it ends up looking like a tautology.

    The moon has an identity ascribed to it and that identity (to the degree it is derived from the properties of the object "moon") is objective. Moon can only be moon and not Earth. The moon is what it is and not what's it's not. The moon exists a certain way and has a identity.

    I know you can say "well the only has the identity we give to it and there's no magical objective identity intrinsic to the moon and blah, blah,blah" but that's all nit-picky shit. The moon is the fucking moon. If thew Loi did not describe reality then how would we identify "the moon"?

    Yes identity is something we give to entities but the reason we don't say X is a dog AND also a cat.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Reality is a certain way”

    Real: object with location; synonym: exist

    The Moon is real because it is an object with location. That’s what real means.

    “and A=A is a formal description of that”

    NO IT AIN’T YOU NUMBSKULL! There is NO provision for REALITY/EXISTENCE in the symbols ‘A’ and ‘=’. Those symbols have no meaning or description whatsoever except what YOU just pulled out of your ass and trying to force others to accept your Religion. These symbols apply only to tautologies like Math and Formal Systems of Logic and they do not invoke what is real or what exists. Symbol ‘A’ is NOT a synonym for ‘reality/existence’, you fool! You cannot take any meaning you like and ascribe it to those symbols. I can just as easily ASSERT like you do, that A=A means that “Jesus exists” and I can keep REPEATING it on and on and on and on and on and on….like YOU do until somebody gets tired and accepts it for tiredness sake. This is called TROLLING!

    Even if we take YOUR ascribed meaning at face value....and I quote: “A=A means A cannot be both A and not A”

    You are invoking the LNC: A ^ ~A

    If you take a basic Logic 101 course you will learn that the NEGATION of a contradiction is a tautology and vice versa!!!!!! Always, always, always! The very meaning you attempt to ascribe to A=A means that it IS INDEED A TAUTOLOGY according to YOU! So stop chasing your tail in circles back & forth because A=A is a tautology in Philosophy, Logic and according to what YOU presented here.

    .

    “When I talk about a cat not also being a dog I'm not talking about the names/labels we apply. I'm talking about the identity.”

    Identity is a concept that WE as humans give to living entities like cats, dogs and humans via their Birth Certificates or Registrations. This how these entities can be identified by us. Identitity is a concept that is useful only to us. Reality has NO identity and it is impossible for you to justify otherwise.

    There is NO other identity and there certainly isn’t any stupid moronic LAW OF IDENTITY like idiot Rand asserted in her Communist dreams!

    Here, educate yourself and stop trolling:

    https://hubpages.com/education/Law-of-Identity-A-i...

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    It's not a tautology in the sense you mean. Reality is a certain way and A=A is a formal description of that. IF you just separate A=A from it's proper context then yes it's a tautology but you shouldn't do that.

    When I talk about a cat not also being a dog I'm not talking about the names/labels we apply. I'm talking about the identity.

    FFS why do I have to waste time explaining that?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “A tautology is when you say the same thing thing twice, usually with different words.”

    Listen you fool…..go do some reading on what tautology is and stop trolling here, ok? I already posted the meaning of tautology as invented by the Greeks. Your trolling is over!

    .

    “A=A means each thing that exists”

    There is no provision for EXISTENCE in a tautology, much less in A=A. There is only one letter: A. The word ‘exist’ is not there. YOU are magically putting it there to make a special pleading case and add some sort of meaning which was never there in order to save yourself from drowning. Busted!

    .

    “A cat cannot also be a dog”

    We point to an animal and name it. This is how objects are given names. Take a Philosophy & Science 101 course to understand how humans gave names like ‘dog’ and ‘cat’ to objects. It has nothing to do with tautology A=A.

    You are tripping over your own feet because you have the intelligence of a tub of drywall compound! It’s like this is your first day you set foot on this planet and into reality. You don’t get anything.

    Anyway….your trolling is over. Your level of stupid has NO hope. You belong as a host for the Atheist Experience Show.

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    A tautology is when you say the same thing thing twice, usually with different words.

    A=A means each thing that exists has an identity. A cat cannot also be a dog. If the reality to which A=A refers is not absolute then our arguments are meaningless.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Did you read and comprehend what I posted earlier, or do you enjoy trolling? The negation of the contradiction A ^ ~A you posted in IS INDEED A TAUTOLOGY, Bimbo Judge!

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    It's not a repetition in that sense and it's not meaningless. It's a formal way of saying a thing is itself and not another thing. It's derived from the consistency of reality. It's not a rhetorical tautology.

    How else does one avoid equivocation?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Judge,

    “You've conflated A=A with A equals another A”

    Nope! There is only one A…..this one: A

    It's time to get your eyes checked. You most likely need reading glasses.

    .

    “A=A is not a tautology”

    You need to educate yourself on what a tautology is:

    Tautology is a Greek term (tautologia) which means “repetition of what has been said” (i.e. rhetoric).’ A=A’ or ‘A is A’ is indeed a repetition. It’s rhetoric as it’s meaningless, got it?

    .

    “A=A means A cannot be both A and not A”

    Nope. That’s NOT what it means. ‘A=A’ or ‘A is A’ is rhetoric and utterly devoid of any meaning. What you concluded was a consequence of negating A=A as you did in your statement.

    A ^ ~A is indeed a contradiction.

    If you had taken an introductory Logic 101 course you’d realize that a tautology's negation is a contradiction….and a contradiction’s negation is a TAUTOLOGY! So when we negate your "A ^ ~A" statement we necessarily get a tautology.

    Therefore, A=A is indeed a tautology!!!

    Your whole argument is self-refuting. Please take a Logic 101 course and learn the ultra-basics before coming here to post ignorant caca ramblings, ok?

  • profile image

    Judge Death 3 years ago

    You've conflated A=A with A equals another A. A=A is not a tautology in the sense you mean. A=A means A cannot be both A and not A in reality. All the arguments you make here depend on that being true.

  • profile image

    puella 3 years ago

    According to the illustrated (not any magazine tho) there are six senses. Precisely the sixth is the only one what makes sense... It would be something very much equivalent to wisdom (wit, common sense, or how or what ever one may want to call it)... If we reduce our senses to 5 only, then, the absolute truth is reduced to the famous (or should I say infamous?) WYSIWYG..the obvious things...

    And that's why FF is right...The 'sensory-limed' should really be 'sensory-limited' BUt when anybody tries to 'make sense' of the 'flavours' of speech, specially, it is usually true that the obvious unfiltered by the nous (sixth sense) may too frequently be lime-flavored. Now limes, per se, are pretty good antiradical-wise, so we 'should' like it ;);)

    And, seriously? truth is never sad, said the poet, it only is remedyless...

    In the mean time, we are very limited, sense-wise speaking, to the already obvious to expect (limes? yes, sour...vinegar, worse...Sugar? falsehoods; dark...difficult?; light...empty-headed? names? you got me; words plus words? it depends on the prism; finally, nous is the senses' sense...and which is what has us here, or like Paul used to sing, there and everywhere in his Acts. Please do not try to extricate on this post ;) It's just .... rethoric

  • profile image

    puella 3 years ago

    In the formal sciences, the domain of discourse, also called the universe of discourse (or simply universe), is the set of entities over which certain variables of interest in some formal treatment may range. The domain of discourse is usually identified in the preliminaries, so that there is no need in the further treatment to specify each time the range of the relevant variables.[1] Many logicians distinguish, sometimes only tacitly, between the domain of a science and the universe of discourse of a formalization of the science.[2] Giuseppe Peano formalized number theory (arithmetic of positive integers) taking its domain to be the positive integers and the universe of discourse to include all individuals not just integers.

    For example, in an interpretation of first-order logic, the domain of discourse is the set of individuals that the quantifiers range over. In one interpretation, the domain of discourse could be the set of real numbers; in another interpretation, it could be the set of natural numbers. If no domain of discourse has been identified, a proposition such as ∀x (x2 ≠ 2) is ambiguous. If the domain of discourse is the set of real numbers, the proposition is false, with x = √2 as counterexample; if the domain is the set of naturals, the proposition is true, since 2 is not the square of any natural number.

    The term universe of discourse generally refers to the collection of objects being discussed in a specific discourse. In model-theoretical semantics, a universe of discourse is the set of entities that a model is based on. The concept universe of discourse is generally attributed to Augustus De Morgan (1846) but the name was used for the first time in history by George Boole (1854) on page 42 of his Laws of Thought in a long and incisive passage well worth study. Boole's definition is quoted below. The concept, probably discovered independently by Boole in 1847, played a crucial role in his philosophy of logic especially in his stunning principle of wholistic reference. (wikipedia)

    Then, like in a cooking recipe, if we are talking about baking only integers, then we all know that fractions won't be cooked in; it's what FF means, the universe of discourse, or, better, distinguish between the domain of the science and the universe of discourse... to avoid ambiguities as possible, or to avoid frying instead of baking, some part of the discourse... says me.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    ***darn spell check: "sensory-limed" should be "sensory-limited" (i.e. to 5 senses). Sensory limes are sour, LOL

  • profile image

    puella 3 years ago

    Ahhh, rethoric...

    "Painting depicting a lecture in a knight academy, painted by Pieter Isaacsz or Reinhold Timm for Rosenborg Castle as part of a series of seven paintings depicting the seven independent arts. This painting illustrates rhetorics.

    Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.[1] As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition.[2] Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion."[3] Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic—see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse." from wikipedia

    I can see what rethoric means/is/gets... but I do not 'sink' titanically ;) (like in 'think') that science, by using formal methods/methodologies does do that to convince anybody of the universals; it's a 'required' need (xcuse the redundancy) to be fulfilled for the sake of pre-proving the already obvious theoretically... In other words, the 'fly me to the moon' was not a rethorical begging...it actually was a trip based on, well, you all know, the magellanes-wise flight...more based on instinct (does instinct need a proof?)... I mean, the survival one...

    However, yes, I agree that faith stuff does not really need science nor logic nor rethoric (as defined currently) as it's mostly a brains stuff interacting with the heart and some hopes...all mental in soul and flesh ;) of the grey matters (in color/difficulty and in the locality of the so-called gray matter when we speak of lumosity ;) But I need to understand how do we disengage one of the other...the mental processes/no-processes from the science/logic/etc when both use matters grey in color and in difficulties (both realms of the brain, as a matter of fact)...and that is not taking into the complex square root of things the intringuilis brought up by the not-so uncomplicated matter of...language.

    So, no, monkey stuff does not belong here unless we are talking to or about the brainy master whose name is nothing less than monkeyminds, admirable MMs ;)

    Yet, science has flew us to the moon and Saturn moons and still, we keep arguing how or why Humpty Dumpty sat in the wall, had a great fall, and all the king's horses and men, could not put Humpty together again...HD is an interesting depiction of grey matters (those outside the brains) but still in the minds of some who rush and then desintegrate in such a way that no king's horses nor men can again integrate (not even by elementary differential calculus to compute the area, between a and b, under a particular function except the step function... Ahh rethorical issues, Willy, what have you done by leaving Straton Upon Avon?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Anthony,

    Try to collect your thoughts in one post if you can. It becomes rather messy here with multiple posts going off in different tangents. Let’s just deal with one issue at a time.

    “Can you demonstrate that the works of scientists, black hole, Big Bang theory are frauds or do you think that they have not given sufficient evidence to believe in those theories?”

    Sufficient to whom…..a Priest, a Rabbi, a Monk, a Mullah, a Yogi, the President, the First Lady, your neighbor, your teacher, etc??

    In Science we don’t strive to walk on egg shells and around glass in order to provide sensory-limed subjective evidence for the purposes to SUFFICE people’s emotions and opinions. Subjectivity has ZERO to do with reality. Science is not a Nail Salon, Hair Salon or a Foot & Body Spa….do you understand this much?

    In Science we present a Theory on the Big Bang Creation that is rational and cannot be contradicted. If the Big Bullshit Theory can be contradicted (like I contradicted it in my other articles) then it is an irrational Theory attempting to describe an event which is IMPOSSIBLE. In order for an event to be possible, the Theory MUST be rational and non-contradictory. Science 101!

    “You have a pretty scathing view of scientists who believe “

    LOL….nothing to do with “MY” view….this is an objective issue: only RELIGIOUS NUTCASES BELIEVE. Science has nothing to do with belief & faith. Scientists NEVER believe, only Priests do. A Scientist only EXPLAINS, and he does so rationally with his Theory.

    You need to take an introductory course in Science because you “believe” that Science is a synonym for Religion.

    And if you wish to talk about Big Bang Creation, then please take your comments to one of my articles on the Big Bang. Thanks.

  • profile image

    SxAnthony 3 years ago

    I will write it once again. You have a pretty scathing view of scientists who believe in inflationary models of the universe, because it agrees with and explains all existing observations. I want to challenge that.

    Tell me what is the problem and I'll set your mind at ease. :]

  • profile image

    SxAnthony 3 years ago

    I agree with most of your thoughts on logic, but I think that the assumptions (axsioms) of classical logic are reasonable. The laws of logic are a semantic framework for developing a consistent ontology of observable phenomena.

    So to make my point clear, we are observers who experience the universe at a macroscopic (Newtonian) frame of reference. From this frame of reference, we abstract a semantic framework from our empirical experience of the universe. So I hope that you can understand me when I say that the axioms of quantum logic are abstracted from our empirical models of quantum mechanics.

  • profile image

    SxAnthony 3 years ago

    Mhh, I thought someone rational was writing this, but then I saw the comments... Geez, you're raving mad. Can you demonstrate that the works of scientists, black hole, Big Bang theory are frauds or do you think that they have not given sufficient evidence to believe in those theories?

  • profile image

    puella 3 years ago

    dfds

    as in "DFDs look easy on the surface - after all, what's hard about writing down a few bubbles and arrows? In practice the techniques proves to be somewhat more difficult than one might initially anticipate. Obtaining appropriate names for both processing steps and data flows can require careful thought. As one rule of thumb, imagine that you are producing a diagram that must pass this test: you will finish the DFD, then hand it to someone (of reasonable intelligence) who will then proceed to describe the process back to you based upon what he or she sees in your diagram. If this process recitation captures your original process description (and, of course, the appropriate characteristics of the business process itself), your DFD is reasonably accurate. "???? (from"http://faculty.babson.edu/dewire/Readings/dfdmistk...

    Genuinily asking ;)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Don't be shy, sfdsf....we don't bite here. We may give the occasional virtual atomic wedgie, but we don't bite.

  • profile image

    sfdsf 3 years ago

    dfds

  • profile image

    puella 3 years ago

    FF, you are way too concedng here

    If this light vs dark is stated using light as a property of...of...feathers!! then how can I 'conclude" (or should I say, by using this person's same thought engine "concluse" or "obtuse' as a new verb!!) or, should I ask How can I not make a pasticcio of dark and light if thinking, by the same token, that dark is both, light in weight-referred as light-and-feathers equality, or just another condition of light where the observed space 'seems' light-less?????

    Hmm, which way out, asked Alice to the cat, and the cat asked back "depends on which way you are going to" so when Alices replied "I do not much care" then the cat said "then it won't matter"...What? "matter"?? but is not light matter? Ok... zeronothing, the microphone is light and...btw, yours

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Your first premise is that "light is opposite of dark". And what is dark? Oh...that is simply the "opposite of light", as per your premises.

    So your first premise is: A is ~(~A)....which reduces to: A is A.

    Then your second premise uses the term 'light' in another context (of weight) and you plug in the term 'light' into two different contexts and you now end up with a nonsensical conclusion....no different than what a Mathematician does when he attempts to apply Tautological Systems of Logic to reality.

    “So do you accept the conclusion as sound”

    Well….it can’t be logically sound if it equivocates across contexts.

    Here is an example of a logically consistent, sound and logically valid deductive argument that cannot be refuted using logic:

    Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.

    Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.

    Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.

    “So where am I wrong”

    You cannot base any type of argument off the “alleged” law of identity (A is A) which is a self-refuting concept rather than a law,….and it has nothing to do with logic, as explained here:

    https://hubpages.com/education/Law-of-Identity-A-i...

  • profile image

    zeronothing 3 years ago

    1) Light is the opposite of dark

    2) Feathers are light

    3) Thus, feathers are the opposite of dark.

    Given the Law Of Identity A=A (a term/label is equal to it's defined essential attributes), the above argument commits the fallacy of equivocation, because premise 1's "light" has a different set of defined essential attributes than premise 2's "light".

    If the Law Of Identity wasn't respected in this argument (what is the single operative definition for "light" in the argument), plus given both premises are true, plus given the argument schemata is valid, then the conclusion would have to be accepted as sound.

    So do you accept the conclusion as sound, or do you accept it commits the fallacy of equivocation based on the law of identity?

    Now I'm sure you can see I'm a beginner in these things, and it's likely that I'm universes away from what you're even talking about.

    So where am I wrong, or should I say, what "terms" do I not have the correct definitions for? (A=A)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Ahh….we have ourselves a disgruntled butthurt suicide bomber!

    Mohammad aka Allen: “How can a lone object even exist”

    Whaaaat? A lone object can exist??? Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

    Mohammad, please tell us what you mean by the term ‘exist’.

    Here, let me help you get started because I know it is impossible for you to answer this question…..

    Mahammad’s definition of ‘exist’:________

    Fill in the blanks, otherwise you are finished…..ha ha!

  • profile image

    puella 3 years ago

    Someone saw this 'lone' object, so it's qualified as 'lone'? or it is an imaginary context of a lone object or sort of a memory thingie? If it suffices, sometimes we are sure of certain meaning to an expression, in a conversation, to then realize that we were wrong... asumptions are biased, so this object, is it asumed?, Remember, is is not equal to is

  • profile image

    puella 3 years ago

    hello every one! it was a nice surprise to see some of you again and it's beautiful to see you on the topic... hmm no location nd no motion.. i think no, but may, can, was, am, or will be wrong ;) but still....

  • profile image

    Allen 3 years ago

    Fatfist,

    You said, "Exist = object + location".

    How can a lone object even exist if it have no location and motion? And how can this lone object can still retain its shape?

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    @SoL

    I'm glad it brought you some joy. Be well.

  • ScienceOfLife profile image

    ScienceOfLife 5 years ago

    Allen, fantastic comments about cause/effect and the fallacies of the free-will/determinism "debate".

    Really nice breakdown my friend.

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    @Puella

    “I still acknowledge the 'natural' abilities to promote/engage/succeed in changing; but there are man-made”

    I’m unsure how you designate ‘natural’ from ‘man-made.’ Are men unnatural, somehow? That they act according to their capabilities is unnatural, how? This irrational dichotomy between ‘man’ and ‘nature’ is nothing but the product of Religious moral vanity. Men exist and act according to their capabilities to do so, as does everything living.

    “I am not talking about the biological functions to live, once the chemistry inside bodies allows for it (and I know that chemistry is also dependent of some 'mays')”

    And thus it makes no sense to speak of a strict dichotomy! This is what I’ve been trying to tell you. “May” and “can” are inextricably related concepts, at least for living things! There’s no way around it.

    Let me illustrate using analogous set of concepts: ‘cause’ and ‘effect.’

    There is no such thing as ‘cause,’ (much to the chagrin of Religionists who want an absolute beginning to everything.) “Cause” and “effect” are concepts related to (‘within’) another (meta-)concept: “Event.” “Cause” and “effect” together = an “event.”

    Likewise, in context of living things, ‘can’ and ‘may’ are inextricable from one another. It doesn’t matter if it’s an amoeba, mouse, or a man to which we refer. To speak of ‘can’ outdoing ‘may,’ or ‘may’ outdoing ‘can,’ is the stuff of Theology.

    Think of how much ink has been spilled in the “free-will” vs. “determinism” debate, which is based precisely in this idiotic dichotomy! It’s obvious most Theists believe in the former. But how many Athiests believe in the latter? I’d say LOTS!!! It’s idiocy to pick a side in a stupid debate, no matter how old and venerated it is or how much consternation it’s caused the Priests and Philosophers!

    “so I refute the absoluteness of your statement based on my short-lived experience and observation and, yes, scepticism for any 'unbiased' absolute.”

    You’ve ‘refuted’ nothing because I never offered an absolute. Remember, I said that ‘can’ and ‘may’ are *tropically* RELATED concepts; not a matter of choosing EITHER one OR the other. Nor is it an arbitrary question of being ‘more’ of one than the other, as you said...(and you said it due to your natural capabilitity to evaluate and opine thusly. ;-)

    As the Religionists tell us ‘absolute’= WITHOUT relation, limitation, or condtion. So, obviously no ‘absolutes’ in any relationship, much less a *tropical* relationship...unless someone slipped some Higgs boson in your Mai Tai!

    Is perception a “result more” of objects or subjects? Is the ferromagnetism of a permanent magnet a ‘result more’ of its north pole or south pole? Is a straight road on an incline a “result more” of the up or down direction? Is the year a “result more” of summer or winter?

    It simply makes no sense to speak of life in terms of “internal” and “external” as if they are...well...absolute. We can say a liver (an object) is ‘interal’ since it’s surrounded by skin (an object), but not the overall evolution of living things (concepts). ‘Can’ and ‘may’ are simply poles in an active, *tropical* relationship we call “life.”

  • profile image

    puella 5 years ago

    you mean intact? maybe it's some cinematography trick known as 'stunt' ? ;)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Puella,

    “people at CERN, and all that jazz, are a too a "tablao"??”

    Indeed they are. Not only that, but they found God. What a bunch of hypocrites!

    “Indeed, the real 'story' about being swallowed by a whale and then be spitted back to the seas, is full of all kinds of aw...and I always dismissed it”

    Oh, you can dismiss it. But atheists takes this stuff very seriously. A black hole is alleged to swallow a bonehead atheist. Just as you thought the atheist is no longer.....he pops right back out of a white hole in tact just a few days later.

  • profile image

    puella 5 years ago

    fatfist,

    you mean then that Stevy Weinberg and his dream of a final theory, and people at CERN, and all that jazz, are a too a "tablao"??? tablao= sort of a gipsy dance less dull than tap dancing, that comes alive in lamentations, and lost loves longings; typically from the South of Spain -Andalucia, hence its moorish flavor-- but it's heard in other countries of central Europe)...

    Forget about the brief history of time ;) as the guy has been 'discredited' by the ex who has portrayed him as a bookseller who will write what sells only , and that,in science, is a no no...

    Your analogies...;) JK Rowling (author of Harry Potter and all that...bluegrass ;) has now been tumbled to second..

    Indeed, the real 'story' about being swallowed by a whale and then be spitted back to the seas, is full of all kinds of aw...and I always dismissed it, as I earlier said, the Old Testament is hard to understand or explain or to follow or even justify (too an irate God) ; at least some parts...There is the Psalms that I enjoy though...

    I knew I would be caught off base here ;) but never like this...hmmm

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Yes, you did Allen! It's not hard for a thinker to see the one-to-one relations to Religion. And since most atheists are ex-theists, the majority cannot conceptualize a universe without all that superstitious nonsense they were brainwashed with all their lives. They even conceive of math equations to justify it.

    We've seen this similarity with "absolute truth" going from Religion and right into Atheism. Yeah, it's a riot.

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    @Fatfist & Monkey

    The Big Bang/Big Crunch = Genesis/Revelation equation I'd thought of, but, I have to say I'd not thought of black holes equating to Jonah's whale, nor the Math Fizz burning bush scenario! That's a riot!!! Thanks.

    @ Puella

    "please do not get frustrated...I maybe shortsighted (I am in fact since age 12) but still deserving of patience as I have not any intention to bug you ;)"

    Unfortunately, I probably won't have time this evening to clarify further. But, since you seem willing to listen/read, I'll do my utmost to respond tomorrow.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    ^^^Yeah, but, "That's just funny right thar." - Larry the Cable Guy

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    monkey,

    No need to quote me, just confront an atheist directly with these tenets of his Religion and watch the idiot squirm and cry like a baby. The atheists make fun of Christians because they borrowed their beliefs from pagans and the Egyptians (Horus). Now the joke is on them. Bill has been saying stuff like this all along.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    @ FF:

    Damn that's good! I'm stealing that right now.

    OK, OK..I'll quote you! Wish I'd thot of that though!

  • profile image

    puella 5 years ago

    Allen,

    no; I did not unplug 'meself': i just distrust unbiased absolutes...the biased, they are self-defeted

    you are talking of the 'most' natural 'may' provisions?

    I still acknowledge the 'natural' abilities to promote/engage/succeed in changing; but there are man-made (therefore not-natural 'provisions' that preclude specifically those natural provisions of "can" and transform them in 'pyrrhics""; I am not talking about the biological functions to live, once the chemistry inside bodies allows for it (and I know that chemistry is also dependent of some 'mays'); I am talking of the suppression of the 'allowing' part by either 'natural' or 'man-made"; when it's really natural, then we accept them as they are and the fit will change and the unfit will have to accept defeat and/or die; but when it's man-made precluding "may' not even the fittest will be able to, "be not able" then as access is, from start, refuted/unreachable... so I refute the absoluteness of your statement based on my short-lived experience and observation and, yes, scepticism for any 'unbiased' absolute.

    Is there a 'democracy' in the 'may'? you seem to think that, as I cannot compartmentalize the 'may' and the 'access to may' if it's not-natural" and still think that if the "can' if present, will take care of it...NO way

    I can't compartmentalize the forces of the socio-economic realm and pretend that a natural doted life will be able to... ;

    Is randomness a determining factor on the 'may'

    Is there any truth value in "being in the right place at the right time"? so help me God? natural?

    please do not get frustrated...I maybe shortsighted (I am in fact since age 12) but still deserving of patience as I have not any intention to bug you ;)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    monkey,

    Actually, Atheism has ALL the Religious beliefs from theism except they did away with God. These folks really hate God, but have no problem stealing all His magic and incorporating it into their own Religion. They just invent a new spirit called “0D singularity” or “quantum fluctuation of space (nothing)”; i.e. matterless motion.

    The collection of writings of Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, String Theory and M-Theory are the modern version of the Atheist’s Bible...also known as the Pentateuch.

    Genesis is now called Big Bang.

    Revelations is called Big Crunch or Oscillating Universe.

    The Acts of the Apostles has now been replaced by the new minstrels: Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Hawking, etc.

    Stories like Jonah eaten and spit out by the big fish have now been modernized. It is now an abstract concept called Black Hole which eats and spits out (i.e. white hole) astronauts and their spaceships.

    And heaven is now called multiverse. Jesus doesn't ascend to heaven and materialize back on Earth after 3 days any more. That’s kid's stuff, for people with no scientific background. Now Jesus has copies of himself in multiverses.

    In the old days, God converted Himself into a flaming bush and talked to humans. Now God converts Himself from a particle to energy, from wave to particle, from the concept mass to the Higgs God particle.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 5 years ago from My Tree House

    @Puella

    What is sad, is that atheists attack your religious beliefs, but don't even understand that they have religious beliefs of their own.

    All is well and good. You word salad is fine. I just pick out the pieces, like 'believe' and 'Sisyphus' and the rest ain't so bad.

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    @puella

    "how do the genetically irreversible damaged living things, but still with life to go on, enter your 'can' and 'may'"

    Did you really just cover your ears and yell "LALALALALALALA!"?

    This may be news to you but, living entails certain capabilities non-living things don't have. Even at its most basic, a life-form **must** have the capability to feed; appropriate, assimilate, other objects into itself. No feeding, no life ("capability"). No food, no life ("condition").

    This has nothing to do with imagination/dreaming, intelligence, or whether others give them a hand. Even those living bodies force-fed by others have the capability for feeding.

  • profile image

    puella 5 years ago

    Allen,

    1) your comment of me "overestimating my intelligence" or my skills or else, is it really a need? or just a background for an explanation ;)

    2) how do the genetically irreversible damaged living things, but still with life to go on, enter your 'can' and 'may'

    (my supermarket employs a lot of mentally handicap people as a community service...these guys are incredible... but they can't challenge those conditions of their selves nor even dream for a better condition... I do not see a can nor a may feasible... volition or not, it will keep the same for them... and yes, they have a life...

    3)btw, thanks for taking the time to save me time ;) your explanation is very much appreciated.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    “life: the ability an object has naturally developed to move of its own volition against gravity.”

    They claim to be searching for life in the universe, but not a single mathematician has been able to define what life is. This is why they can’t tell you whether DNA, amino acids, viruses are life, or whether CHNO constitutes the building block of life.

    The word “life” is a concept that is inherently dynamic. So whatever rational definition we come up with, it must describe the dynamics of any living entity. Resistance to gravity is the only dynamic criterion which parsimoniously captures the essence of life without getting into subjective irrelevancies which can’t be generalized to all forms of life. The above is Bill Gaede’s definition.

    Cells are the smallest entities with the ability to move on their own. Hence, they are the building blocks of life, not DNA as some assert without justification. DNA is just a collection of molecules which are inert entities.

  • profile image

    puella 5 years ago

    I told you, I don't quit ;);) so I m still here in search of 'the' truth ;) which will act as a sleeping pill for me tonight...;)

    I promise, I will be brief to brief you ;)

    The Fist (as monkeyminds calls fatfist ;) said

    "Puella talks more coherently than any atheist out there!" (TY!)

    and monkeyminds, after having dismissed my writing as word salad, {see his post below} and so, unnecessary baggage, ;) just because the Fist says so, agrees while sighing or chuckling ;);)

    "Sadly, this is so. I suppose I have just grown accustomed to the straight forward language of the Fist!"

    I have to admit that I too admire the Fist: a real guy, with the mix of engaging all in the conversation, extremely articulate, light-blooded even when in pursue of ;);) some slippery ones ;) and, of course, the way to present the topic: even me who never dwelt in tautology can follow his almost power-point-like lecturing... Thumbs up fatfist!

    Some readers should trust the Fist and return to the podium ;), (puella dixit.)

    Can a word salad be coherent? I can understand the "unnecessary" part though...:) and why is it sad to be more coherent than atheists while being a Catholic? Am I being wasted? I should be the most authoritative speaker about... myself ;) no?

    so, my dear monkeyminds, are you understanding me or parroting the Fist? I need to know, so I can go and sleep over this anxiety caused by the ambiguity or dichotomy of to be and/or not to be, which is more infamous than "something is rotten in Denmark" I believe ;) (Hamlet dixit)

    this was moonkeyminds opinion about me, poor thing, lost in translations...:

    "Well, call me a curmudgeon, if you like, but I meant, that your prose, and poetry is merely word-salad (unnecessary baggage). This is all too common among fufu gurus, who wish to trick us."

    "I can't tell if you are Plato or Lucretius."

    Me neither ;) I believe (therefore I am/exist) I am none of the above...to be 'exact'

    I refuse to go to sleep without my salad... dressings ;) : my tonight's lullaby ;) night-night, sleep tight!!

    but before I leave, I now know what fufu means...;) It seems a pretty easy meal to do...and I will try it ...see? monkeyminds you taught me something new I have never heard about...TY!!

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    @puella

    If you need to ask "????," then you haven't investigated "can" and "may" nearly as far as you believe you have. Perhaps you've overestimated your actual intelligence, powers of observation, and skill at navigating the seas of history, in this instance. Words have historical usage, meanings, which change, remember? I guess it's the philologist in me :-)

    Here. Let me help:

    "The main distinction between *kunnaną [root of 'can'] and *maganą [root of 'may'] is that the former deals with one's own capabilities, whereas the latter indicates ability due to favourable circumstances not under one's control."

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germa...

    Let's break these notions down a bit.

    For human apes, and all living things, 'may' and 'can' are completely inextricable from one another. There is no 'can,' (capability of an living thing to continue living) without a 'may' (conditions which are favorable for life). You got this half. Good for you. But, you simply left out the rest in your sweeping statement about 'evolution.'

    Living things must be capable of changing their conditions. Fatfist uses the following for the definition of life: the ability an object has naturally developed to move of its own volition against gravity. Obviously to move is a change of condition; "its own volition" is a capability!!! "Can" and "may" are obviously two sides of the same coin.

    At another basic level, the necessity for food, to appropriate other objects, IS a change in one's condition. We could go on at length with examples. but the basic reality is: No capability to change conditions more favorable to oneself, no life: No conditions favorable to exercise those capabilities, no life. There's no way around it. 'Can' and 'may' simply (your "internal ability" and "external pressure") go hand in hand.

    Got it, now?

  • profile image

    puella 5 years ago

    With no intentions to bore anybody, a copy-paste from english.illinois.edu

    "A Letter to Harriet Monroe

    (as reprinted in Poetry, October 1926)

    [This is the letter to Monroe in which Crane analyzes the connotative meanings of his words and proposes a "logic of metaphor" that depends upon close and repeated readings. It is one of the few documents that openly argues for a highly intellectualized approach to the reading of poetry.]

    … [A]s a poet, I may very possibly be more interested in the so-called illogical impingements of the connotations of words on the consciousness (and their combinations and interplay in metaphor on this basis) than I am interested in the preservation of their logically rigid significations at the cost of limiting my subject matter and the perceptions involved in the poem.

    This may sound as though I merely fancied juggling words and images until I found something novel, or esoteric; but the process is much more predetermined and objectified than that. The nuances and feeling and observation in a poem may well call for certain liberties which you claim the poet has no right to take. I am simply making the claim that the poet does have that authority, and that to deny it is to limit the scope of the medium so considerably as to outlaw some of the richest genius of the past.

    This argument over the dynamics of metaphor promises as active a future as has been evinced in the past. …

    Its paradox, of course, is that its apparent illogic operates so logically in conjunction with its context in the poem as to establish its claim to another logic, quite independent of the original definition of the word or phrase or image thus employed. It implies (this inflection of language) a previous or prepared receptivity to its stimulus on the part of the reader. The reader’s sensibility simply responds by identifying this inflection of experience with some event in his own history or perceptions – or rejects it altogether. The logic of metaphor is so organically entrenched in pure sensibility that it can’t be thoroughly traced or explained outside of historical sciences, like philology and anthropology. This "pseudo-statement," as I. A. Richards calls it in an admirable essay touching our contentions in last July’s Criterion ["A Background to Contemporary Poetry" 3 (July 1925), 511-528], demands completely other faculties of recognition than the pure rationalistic associations permit. …

    From O My Land, My Friends: The Selected Letters of Hart Crane, ed. Langdon Hammer and Brom Weber (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1997), 278-79"

    Tim Dean:

    On "The Logic of Metaphor" as an Alternative Discourse

    In his understanding of the function and capacity of poetry, Crane subscribed to a poetic ideology that was at once transhistorical and culturally specific. The notion that poetry is a discourse of another kind – that poetry provides access to outcomes unattainable by any other representational means – inheres in the tradition of poetic practice. In a much reprinted letter to Harriet Monroe, Crane claimed the privilege implicit in the notion of poetry as a discourse of another kind: "If the poet is to be held completely to the already evolved and exploited sequences of imagery and logic – what field of added consciousness and increased perceptions (the actual province of poetry, if not lullabies) can be expected when one has to relatively return to the alphabet every breath or so?" …

    Crane’s "logic of metaphor" – which he also calls (in the same essay) the "dynamics of inferential mention" – may represent the "genetic basis" of speech, but it functions quite differently from ordinary spoken language. Metaphoric language is to rational logic as poetic language is to ordinary language – and, we might add, as the unconscious is to consciousness. Through "metaphorical inter-relationships" and metonymic displacements ("associational meanings" and "inferential mention"), Crane’s poetic logic exploits the substitutive and combinative potential of language to such a degree that it may be said to resemble the logic that governs the linguistic unconscious. …

    … Unlike Eliot’s elitist notion of poetic tradition or Pound’s initially democratic notion of poetic language, Crane’s criteria for poetic production and reception seem not to be factored by class.

    Crane’s criteria are esoteric without being elitist, because nobody is denied access a priori to experiential intensity. …"

    Helps?

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    " trying to invent your own BS logic"

    Oh boy, Franto, you drank a bit too much of that champagne again on Sunday. I hope at least the hands of your Priest were soft and warm while he was massaging you...you are in need of some relaxation. Being a believer is fraught with all kinds of irrational fears; heaven, hell, the Big Crunch...

    But, let me reassure you while you're relaxed and sobering up from your bender: *all logic is invented.*

  • profile image

    puella 5 years ago

    "Well, call me a curmudgeon, if you like, but I meant, that your prose, and poetry is merely word-salad (unnecessary baggage). This is all too common among fufu gurus, who wish to trick us."

    Fufu? I don't know the meaning, but can figure it ;)

    Trick you? I have said from the start, clear-cut, that I am a Catholic; so where is the trick? do we need a ghost buster? Or perhaps you think that "agreeable" is tricky? It must be 'hard to live with so much distrust... Where have I, here, been preaching or opposing anyone but... well... you know...

    Is putting words or intentions in my mouth another 'logicality" of yours? or is it the same old same old ...just because I am not and you are...

    And then Allen,

    "Oh, there's no real significance of the Epicurean either in its ancient or current meaning. The change in meaning was ultimately based in moral-ontological lying. The same remains prevalent today:..."

    Was there or not a change? based on lies, even moral-ontological lies? What generates the need for lying?

    Lying... and for what reason? in the search of happiness or in the search of more mundane goals? Does not that sound like "interest"?

    "As for myself, I couldn't make such a claim regarding 'more of". I have no scales upon which to weigh these concepts "objectively."

    Oh neither do I, I do not have scales ;);) but I have intelligence... and observation abilities (I also do oil painting) and a passion for history ;) but certainly, for you, a brainy master, some corollaries would not need too much effort to prove'm ...

    "Frankly, I don't see them as oppositions. What sense does it make to say "can" and "may" somehow on opposing teams for us? I'd say they are more *tropically* related concepts than they are adversarial in this context".

    ????

    Do all of your conversations follow the same screening? you never put yourself to 'try' to figure what is the meaning of the message, knowing where it is coming from?

    and then, fatfist...

    "Puella talks more coherently than any atheist out there!"

    Maybe or not; it all depends on who reads what and the 'purpose' (for selecting reading some people)...

    For example, I do not like thrillers, nor fiction science, nor romantic movies; I like documentaries...reports... and some columnists of the New York Times (my favorite paper).. I used to read The Guardian... and, of course, I have reread the Bible a couple of times (The New Testament)...as the Old I find a bit... strange , with some exceptions...

    I do not trick and I do not lie... and mostly, I have a distaste for who believes him/her self superior... without any hmmm say ... need to prove him/her self... or worse, without any edible contents.

    Therefore, I still think that there were and there are some barbarians hanging around and to that I can only do one thing: smile

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hey Franto,

    So here is the comment from the record on Aug 12....and I quote:

    Fat: “And as explained in detail above, an object only needs the INTRINSIC property of ‘shape’ AND the EXTRINSIC property of ‘location’ in order to be said to ‘exist’ within the stringent and most literal sense of the word. The object needs NO other properties to be said to ‘exist’, not just in English, but in any language in the Universe.”

    So you knew what exist=object+location meant in this short form I typed. But obviously, you have NO argument against it. But like other atheist clowns....you tried a mathematical trick as a half-witted attempt to show some intelligence: You started chasing a strawman, figuring that if you said it was an EQUATION, the audience wouldn’t detect this misdirection. Are you sure you are smarter than the audience?

    You fool no one, Franto!

    Not only that....but you are a coward for running away from the argument. Typical atheist. Give your Priest my best regards and ask him to come here if he is not scared to answer questions.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hey Franto,

    “Where else do you see anyone using such stupid equation?”

    It’s not an equation, you numbskull.....it’s shorthand for: only objects having location can be said to exist.

    But like everything else..it went 30 miles over your head. Mathematicians can never understand anything in reality.

    Please stay under your Priest's robe. You are a danger to yourself.

    But the $$$CASH$$$ offer still stands....and always will.