Author Topic: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?  (Read 4928 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4834
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #58 on: January 16, 2013, 01:25:14 AM »
The man is not a Christian. He is one of your own. I am not interetd in your disgruntles with a man who taught your worldview professinally for decades.
It doesn't matter whether Klein is a Christian or not.  You used his arguments, therefore you effectively agree with them, so I basically stated that I don't think much of your arguments.

Quote from: Olivianus
Hold on, just above you said that you were not impressed with his arguments. Now you are agreeing with him. I don't follow. I would agree that neither empiricism or religion can be empirically proved. But then that begs the question I asked plethora at reply #39.
You need to improve your reading comprehension skill.  I was simply restating his argument in a simplified form.  That in no way suggests that I "agree" with him.  In actual fact, I disagree quite strongly with his (and your) position.  Empiricism can be empirically proven on its own terms.  It is your attempt to claim that it cannot be which cannot be empirically proven, since you attempt to deny the basis for empirical proof.  Therefore, your argument is nonsense.

Quote from: Olivianus
Again it depends on what you mean by “prove”. Do you mean an inductive process in a historical series, or do you mean a propositional demonstration in a logical series?
This is nothing more than an attempt by you to muddy the waters and confuse the issue.  Therefore, I will simply state what I meant by prove: testing the validity of something.  And by definition, you cannot test the validity of something that's subjective, because it is inherently untestable to begin with.

Quote from: Olivianus
Please answer the question that I posted at #39.
Your "question" is irrelevant, an attempt to draw plethora into defending fallacious circular logic of your own devising.  Furthermore, as I am not an atheist, it is meaningless to me.

I will assume by your attempt to dodge my point here that you have tacitly acknowledged what I said as true.  In essence, you can't prove your own religious beliefs because you don't even know where to start looking, so your only option is to attack scientific reason and knowledge so you can pretend that your beliefs don't need to be proven to begin with.

Quote from: Olivianus
You have not addressed a single statement he made. But then again the significance of that depends on how you answer #39. It seems to me that what you are saying is that I am the only one who must prove my system. I think I can with coherency theory in a propositional series. But, if you think that an atheist, to be so defined, can be an absolute skeptic, you may feel unmoved that I have destroyed the basis of empiricism. You may be thinking to yourself:

Ok so what that you have refuted empiricism? You haven’t empirically proved your God, thus I am content to remain an atheist until a proof arises that satisfies me.
Not what I'm thinking at all.  You have not actually refuted empiricism, you have simply come up with convoluted, unprovable argument against it.  The problem is, since your argument is inherently unprovable, it by definition cannot actually refute empiricism, because a refutation requires you to be able to prove your own argument true in order to prove the other argument false.

Quote from: Olivianus
But that really begs the question doesn’t it?
Your attempt to attribute thoughts to me begged the question of whether I was an atheist and whether I accepted your refutation of empiricism in the first place.

Quote from: Olivianus
Can an atheist truly exist in that state of ignorance? Every single atheist mindset that I have come across is built on the assumed truth and the assumed commitment of empiricism. Every single one. The atheist position is that no empirical proof has been provided that satisfies your conscience. Thus, to be defined as an atheist you must keep empiricism standing or the whole mental structure comes tumbling down with it.
In other words, you just acknowledged again that you cannot provide actual empirical proof of your beliefs.  Therefore, the only way you can keep your beliefs from toppling is by attempting to disprove science and its foundations.  The problem is that by attempting to refute empiricism, you have blocked yourself from being able to realistically prove or disprove anything.  Therefore, your whole argument fails of its purpose.

Quote from: Olivianus
The problem with this, is that I was raised in the public school system and they don’t tell you this. They tell you that their view of the universe has been proven, objectively and established as the only rational worldview.
That's not actually a problem with science, it's a problem with low-pay high school teachers and lazy textbook manufacturers.  The fact of the matter is that science does not propositions (like dualism) which are not supported by evidence, but they are still discussed and hypothesized about.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #59 on: January 16, 2013, 05:04:04 AM »
jaimehlers

Quote
In actual fact, I disagree quite strongly with his (and your) position.  Empiricism can be empirically proven on its own terms.

1. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?

2. What language should we use to talk about the material world? Mary Louise Gill refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle (Making Logic [The Law of Contradiction] impossible; thus making language impossible.) in her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” (Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

i. If we take matter to be the principle of individuation how do we individuate one unit of matter from another? Some will say, “the spatio-temporal location”. Yet this is circular. How do we individuate spatio-temporal locations? By the matter contained in that space. So the matter is individuated by the space and the space by the matter.

ii. Some have tried to use matter and quantity as the principle of individuation. Gill replies, “this criterion will not work for identical twins, two drafts of water from the same fountain, or Max Black’s pair of spheres, which have qualitatively identical matter.” (pg. 62)

iii. Another attempt has made material continuity the principle of individuation. Gill speaks to this issue on page 66,

“If two statues of Socrates are made out of the same bronze at different times, the statues are distinct because the time during which the matter constitutes the two is interrupted. In the interval the bronze survives the destruction of the first statue and the generation of the second…If this is Aristotle’s answer to the puzzle about material migration, then continuity of matter is not sufficient even to account for weak individuation. Continuity of time is also required.”

iv. Some have tried to use form as the principle of individuation. Gill replies,

“But it is not very good evidence…Some defenders of the thesis will respond that the forms of Callias and Socrates differ because they are realized in different parcels of matter. But then form is not after all the principle of individuation, since the matter, rather than the form, differentiates the particulars.” (pg. 68-69)

3. Induction (asserting the consequence) is a formal fallacy and yet every scientific law is based on it. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21682.0/topicseen.html

4. Mathematics is necessary for every empirical scientific law and yet it is all ad hoc until #2 above has been answered.


Quote
It is your attempt to claim that it cannot be which cannot be empirically proven

I have no burden to prove a negative. You positively affirm empiricism so it is your burden to prove it. Good luck.

Quote
since you attempt to deny the basis for empirical proof.  Therefore, your argument is nonsense.

Obstinacy.

Quote
This is nothing more than an attempt by you to muddy the waters and confuse the issue.

Your obstinate response shows your ignorance. Euclid used a propositional series to develop geometry. This is not new.

Quote
Therefore, I will simply state what I meant by prove: testing the validity of something.

I believe in the coherency theory of truth. That is how I prove my religion.  I have proved that Scripture is coherent: http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/drake-s-systematic-theology

Quote
And by definition, you cannot test the validity of something that's subjective

Logical coherency is not subjective.

Quote
because it is inherently untestable to begin with.

So it is your assertion that coherency theory is false seeing that I clearly affirmed this in reply # which you even quoted above when you quoted me as saying, “I think I can with coherency theory in a propositional series”.

Quote
Your "question" is irrelevant, an attempt to draw plethora into defending fallacious circular logic of your own devising.  Furthermore, as I am not an atheist, it is meaningless to me.

How is my question circular? Asking for a definition of sensation, the identity of a numeric substance, reminding you that induction (asserting the consequent) is a formal fallacy and showing that your failure to distinguish numeric substances provides you with no justification for the existence of numbers is not circular. You just don’t want to have the face the merciless truth of these statements = Obstinacy.

Quote
because a refutation requires you to be able to prove your own argument true in order to prove the other argument false

That is completely false. One can be a complete skeptic if he wanted. No knowledge at all. I think that is where Kline found himself.

Quote
Your attempt to attribute thoughts to me begged the question of whether I was an atheist


Fair enough.

Quote
In other words, you just acknowledged again that you cannot provide actual empirical proof of your beliefs.

So what?

Quote
Therefore, the only way you can keep your beliefs from toppling is by attempting to disprove science and its foundations.

Wrong. You even quoted me where I stated I hold to coherency theory.

Offline plethora

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3456
  • Darwins +60/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Metalhead, Family Man, IT Admin & Anti-Theist \m/
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #60 on: January 16, 2013, 07:06:46 AM »
plethora

Quote from: plethora
You can believe this all you like. Until you can prove it, I reject your claim.

By proof you mean empirical proof I am assuming yes? If so, I have a question for you:

By the assumption you have that empiricism is the paragon of knowledge, do you admit then that an atheist must have knowledge to be so defined as an atheist? That is, that you have first committed yourself to empiricism in order to be an atheist and thus an atheist to be so defined cannot be a skeptic? Is that right?

The only requirement to be an atheist is to lack belief in the existence of a god. Nothing else. Let's make that clear.

As a skeptic, I do subscribe to empiricism ... which has been successfully applied within the context of what science acknowledges to be reality.

... and yes, I do fundamentally make the assumption that what we experience is reality and therefore the only way we can prove anything within the context of this assumed reality is via empiricism which is a central component to the scientific method. It is practical, applicable and useful to us.

Is it possible that this assumed reality isn't real and there is an actual reality beyond it that cannot be detected empirically? Yeah, it's possible.

Can we imagine scenarios where this is the case? Absolutely.
Solipsism, in its various forms, indulges heavily in this. Can it be empirically proven that my brain is not just a brain in a vat? Nope. Can it be empirically proven that it is, in fact, a brain in a vat? No. It can't be empirically proven either way.

If you reject empiricism as a valid way to attain and verify knowledge, then essentially you have put yourself in a philosophical position where nothing can be proven or disproved and therefore no model of reality expressed by us is valid ... including your claim that a god exists.

By what method do you intend to demonstrate that your claim that a god exists is true in any real sense?
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 07:08:17 AM by plethora »
The truth doesn't give a shit about our feelings.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #61 on: January 16, 2013, 08:19:59 AM »
Quote
How do we account for the existence of screwdrivers? Are there multiple physical things to justify the existence of screwdrivers? How do we know there are multiple existing things?


HAL

That is a diversion. My view does not require a demonstration of physical things. Your's does.

I'm imagining a screwdriver in my mind right now, and I'm imagining the thing that it is required to be used on (a screw). Therefore the ideas I presented to you are not physical.

But - how were you able to even jump to the conclusion that there are real screwdrivers at all? Please explain how you are able to believe that real screwdrivers exist when I was just talking about a screwdriver idea - an idea that you comprehended easily.

How are the streets where you live there days? Nice and dry I hope.

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12203
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #62 on: January 16, 2013, 09:38:12 AM »
I am going to need more than your opinion to be convinced.

Likewise.  You claim to have "buried that myth", but I see no evidence of that.  The rest of the world goes on, despite the magnificent accomplishments of a mental giant such as yourself.  Anyway, what do you care what we think?  You are just a brain in a jar.  We don't really exist. 

You yourself do not understand calculus as one of your own professionals has admitted.

Oh, so one mechanical engineer's opinion written in brief is now fact for the entire world that uses calculus?  I see. 

I am not interested in your squabbles with Kline.

Squabbles with Kline.  That's hilarious. You make it sound as if I have an ongoing disagreement over lunch seating with a guy who's been dead for 20 years.  You know, if you didn't try so hard to sound snooty and condescending you probably would not have so badly mischaracterized it. 

I am not interested in knowing more about math and the way secularists think about it,

I am sure you have no interest in knowing more about math.  It's a little sad, but typical of zealots.  They never want to know more about anything and usually don't want other people to know more either.  If you lived in Afghanistan instead of Kentucky, I am sure you would be dousing young girls with acid for daring to go to school.  And frankly, I am not so sure you aren't prepared to do something like that now.

And secularist math.  Right, because theistic math is different.  Maybe you can explain some of that theistic math for us?  Does it involve numbers?

than a man who taught the subject professionally for decades.

funny.  You seem to act as if Kline rejected math.  Yet despite that, he taught it for decades.  Who would teach a subject they thought was vapid and unfounded?  A fraud?  A charlatan?  A man with no moral compass?  Do you think he began his lectures with, "none of this has any philosophical underpinning and is completely meaningless, but today we will be studying conic sections..."?  It seems to me you read Kline, didn't actually understand what he was saying and interpreted it to suit your rather narrow preconceptions.


It is you who is guilty of hubris.

Hubris?  Dude, have you actually read any of your posts?  Maximum arrogance and cluelessness rolled into one misguided xian.


I have an honest question for you.  Aren't xians supposed to be nice?  Humble?  Aren't you supposed to love your enemies?[1]  So, why are you such a dick?  I'm not saying that to be offensive or call you names, though that may be how it seems to you.  I'm saying it because you act in a way that is really offensive.  You are arrogant, disrespectful and condescending.  I'm pretty sure jesus H would say you were a dick.[2]  How do you square that with xian ideals of behavior?

 1. yes, you are. Matt 5:43-45
 2. you know, if he were real.  But he's not, so, you have that going for you.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4834
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #63 on: January 16, 2013, 11:20:06 AM »
I have no burden to prove a negative.  You positively affirm empiricism so it is your burden to prove it.
Actually, you do have a burden of proof.  Attempting to deny it accomplishes nothing and appears to be both dishonest and hypocritical.  The problem is that you have in no way fulfilled that burden of proof.  Logical proofs (such as the coherence theory of truthWiki) do not suffice, because you can prove things using logic which are demonstrably not true.  For example, Zeno's halfway paradox can be logically proven (even though it is demonstrably not true).  Because of this, you cannot rely on logic as your proof; it results in paradoxes that are impossible to resolve using logic.

This is the fundamental problem with your reliance on the coherence theory of truth.  Attempting to verify a logical proposition (as coherence theory is) with logic is meaningless, because the premise of a logical proposition can be false, yet the proposition itself can be true.  While you can write a logical proposition that results in that premise, said logical proposition itself has a premise.  So you either end up with circular logic or "turtles all the way down".  Furthermore, neither can deal with the essential problem of being able to test the actual validity of the original premise to begin with.

That's where empiricism usually comes in.  Yet you've asserted that empiricism itself is invalid, so you cannot use it.  Therefore, you have nothing to check the premises of your logic against.  Your only option is to attempt to use logic to verify those premises, but as I have already stated, that simply does not work.  It results in either circular logic or an infinite series of logical propositions, both of which are fallacies.

Going back to empiricism, it's true that there's no way to absolutely verify it.  But trying to reject it completely because of that is illogical.  That rejection relies on a logical proposition, but because you cannot use logic to prove logic, it's impossible to disprove empiricism without using empiricism.  So, it's impossible to conclusively prove that empiricism is valid, and it's impossible to conclusively prove that empiricism is invalid.  What does that leave us with?  Whether empiricism is useful.  Unlike trying to prove that it is (or isn't) valid, which is not relevant since it's impossible either way, you can show that the results of empiricism are useful.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4834
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #64 on: January 16, 2013, 12:38:36 PM »
1. How do you define sensation and show how sensation produces perception and abstract ideas?
Sensation is produced by the effects of electromagnetism.  Vision is the direct detection of electromagnetic radiation, hearing is the detection of vibrations caused by electromagnetic repulsion, touch is the detection of electromagnetic repulsion itself, and taste/smell are based on chemical reactions (which derive from electromagnetism).  Perception is caused by the makeup of the body's physical structures that allow for sensations; i.e., we perceive specific colors because our eyes have structures that differentiate between particular frequencies of visible light.  Abstract ideas are derived from perception, because they are actually based on emotions (which are based on perceptions).  We perceive something, so we have an emotional reaction to it.  An emotional reaction causes an abstract idea (or a concrete one, depending on the circumstances).

Quote from: Olivianus
2. What language should we use to talk about the material world? Mary Louise Gill refuted all attempts made to provide a theory of individuation in Aristotle (Making Logic [The Law of Contradiction] impossible; thus making language impossible.) in her article: “Individuals and Individuation in Aristotle” (Unity, Identity, and Explanation in Aristotle’s Metaphysics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).
This is a good example of why you cannot solely rely on logic.  Gill may have "proven" that language was impossible, yet it clearly exists; we are using it to communicate with each other right now.  If language was actually impossible, we would not be able to have this argument, therefore it clearly is possible.   Therefore, the particular language does not matter provided we both have a sufficient understanding of it.

Quote from: Olivianus
i. If we take matter to be the principle of individuation how do we individuate one unit of matter from another? Some will say, “the spatio-temporal location”. Yet this is circular. How do we individuate spatio-temporal locations? By the matter contained in that space. So the matter is individuated by the space and the space by the matter.
Your error is your attempt to rely on logic to resolve every question, even questions it is not suited to answer.  Logic is a tool, and like every tool, it has things it is good at and things it is not good at.  If you try to use a hammer to pound in a nail, it does a very good job; but if you try to use it to drill a hole in a piece of wood, it will not work very well.  The same goes here.  All four of your attempts to refute individuation use logic, but logic is not good at refuting things that actually exist.

I see no point in specifically addressing the other three examples, my answer would simply be a rephrasing of the one I used above.

Quote from: Olivianus
3. Induction (asserting the consequence) is a formal fallacy and yet every scientific law is based on it. http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21682.0/topicseen.html
You are referring to the problem of induction.  Note that it is not the same thing as the induction fallacy.  The induction fallacy happens when a sample used for testing is found to not be representative of the whole.  The problem of induction is whether or not the information that we base an inductive conclusion on is representative of the whole or not, and the only way we can actually find out is to discover that it is not.  That does not make it a fallacy.

Quote from: Olivianus
4. Mathematics is necessary for every empirical scientific law and yet it is all ad hoc until #2 above has been answered.
As I have so answered.

Quote from: Olivianus
I have no burden to prove a negative. You positively affirm empiricism so it is your burden to prove it. Good luck.
I addressed this in my earlier post.

Quote from: Olivianus
Obstinacy.
No, as I showed in my earlier post.  By declaring empiricism invalid, you have sabotaged your own argument.  The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove empiricism invalid without some way to test the validity of your premise.  You are essentially arguing that you can do so with logic, but this is impossible, so it is nonsensical to make that claim.

Quote from: Olivianus
Your obstinate response shows your ignorance. Euclid used a propositional series to develop geometry. This is not new.
Your use of those logical proofs in this case were indeed attempts to confuse the issue.  Logical proofs cannot determine the validity of a premise, therefore giving me the choice of logical proofs to determine the validity of something makes no sense.

Quote from: Olivianus
I believe in the coherency theory of truth. That is how I prove my religion.  I have proved that Scripture is coherent: http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/drake-s-systematic-theology
You cannot test the validity of something with logic.  The coherence theory of truth is inherently logical, so whether or not you have proven that scripture is coherent is irrelevant; you cannot show that it is valid with just logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
Logical coherency is not subjective.
No, but you cannot determine that it is valid with logic.  It shares that with something that's subjective.

Quote from: Olivianus
So it is your assertion that coherency theory is false seeing that I clearly affirmed this in reply # which you even quoted above when you quoted me as saying, “I think I can with coherency theory in a propositional series”.
No, it is my assertion that you cannot show that coherence theory is valid with just logic, because logic can not validate logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
How is my question circular? Asking for a definition of sensation, the identity of a numeric substance, reminding you that induction (asserting the consequent) is a formal fallacy and showing that your failure to distinguish numeric substances provides you with no justification for the existence of numbers is not circular. You just don’t want to have the face the merciless truth of these statements = Obstinacy.
It is circular because you attempted to define atheism in such a way that it plethora would have found himself defending circular logic if he had agreed with your proposition.  Basically, you devised a catch-22Wiki (if atheism depends on empiricism, then it cannot be skeptical, because in order to be skeptical it cannot accept empiricism), a logical trap that relies on circular logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
That is completely false. One can be a complete skeptic if he wanted. No knowledge at all. I think that is where Kline found himself.
Incorrect.  This is fallacious because it relies on accepting your definition of a skeptic, rather than the commonly-accepted one.  There is no connection between the amount of knowledge someone has and how skeptical they are.  Indeed, a person can be quite knowledgeable and still be a skeptic by nature.  What you cannot have and still be a skeptic is credulousness; the amount of credulousness someone has restricts how much of a skeptic they can be.

Quote from: Olivianus
So what?
As I have said multiple times in this post, you cannot verify logic with more logic.  You must use something else to verify it.  Normally, empiricism is used to verify logic, but you excluded that, so you have nothing you can use to verify your logic.

Quote from: Olivianus
Wrong. You even quoted me where I stated I hold to coherency theory.
Coherence theory is a kind of logic, and you cannot verify logic with more logic.  That means you have nothing to independently support your own position.  That is why you are attacking empiricism (and science, and math, etc), because if you can invalidate empiricism, you feel that there will be no choice but to accept that logic can verify logic, thus your arguments become very strong.  The problem is that you can't invalidate something that can be shown to exist with logic.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6350
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #65 on: January 16, 2013, 12:50:02 PM »
Olivanus,

I'm curious. Obviously you understand numbers. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying in your blog that there are too many black men. You obviously know how to count.

Since you spend considerable time in the gutter of human intellect with such ideas, do you see your interested in philosophical concepts such as this numbers issue as compensation for your moral failings or do you think that as long as you care clearly intellectual in one endeavor, you must be in all of them?

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Quesi

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1986
  • Darwins +371/-4
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #66 on: January 16, 2013, 03:22:13 PM »
Golly.  I'm not even sure I understand the question. 

But I've got a question for you Oli.  If numbers are a gift from God, why did He reveal the concept of zero to the pagan Mayans when he didn't even let the contemporaries of Jesus know about zero? 

And He really gave the Mayans a superior numerical system to that of His followers.  Why did He do that?


Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12203
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #67 on: January 16, 2013, 03:42:21 PM »
How many commandments are there?  Can we know since our whole foundation for "numbers" has been shattered by Olivi?[1]  How are we to know where one commandment ends and the next begins?  If you take one[2] commandment and add it with another, is that two[3] commandments or is it a single uber-commandment?

What about the plagues of Egypt?  How many of those were there?  How are we to know what "one plague" even means?

Is that the underpinning of numbers, arithmetic and all maths?  The OT?  Is that how we know one through ten - the commandments?[4]  I think I just discovered something.
 1. never mind that Kline did all the heavy lifting and all Olivy did was write a book report
 2. whatever that means
 3. whatever that means
 4. or 613. You know, numbers are what yhwh says they are.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #68 on: January 16, 2013, 04:04:18 PM »
How do we account for the existence of numbers? Are there multiple physical things to justify the existence of numbers? How do we know there are multiple existing things?
It has been shown by Russell and Whitehead http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/06/17/extreme-math-1-1-2/ that 1+1=2 and from that, everything flows.

I doubt you are stupid enough to lend me $1,000 and for me to repay you with $100 - you therefore have the concept of numbers in your mind, which accords with mine and most other people's.[1]

Not all humans have this - the Pirahã Wikipeople lack it. Some animals possess it, most do not. But we need not concern ourselves with animals.

The Inuit, or at least some animist tribes of them, believe that there is only one seal, it is caught, skinned, eaten, etc., and its spirit then departs to create another seal, which the hunter may catch, ad infinitum.

"What" you may say, "do they do when they see more than one seal?" Well believe it or not, there are apologists at work amongst them too - they come up with some mumbo-jumbo to explain the contradiction - perhaps the other seals are merely a vision; perhaps they are demons pretending to be the real seal - I'm sure you can think of something - Christians, and the religious in general, are practised at this sort of thing.

So let's have no more of this rabid nonsense. You may now re-enter the real world.
 1. Just in case this is not so, please send $1,000 and I will pay you back the full $100 immediately.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 04:06:30 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline sun_king

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 388
  • Darwins +25/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • We see things not as they are, but as we are
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #69 on: January 16, 2013, 04:58:04 PM »
Oli, how would you answer if someone asks you how old you are[1] ? What answer did you give when you first went to a school? When you went for your Driver's License?

That answer you gave is the justification for the numbers. Just be thankful for numbers and move on.
 1. I bet you didnt say "I will not respond to that question with a number, because numbers are not yet justified..."

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #70 on: January 16, 2013, 05:49:37 PM »
I doubt you are stupid enough to lend me $1,000 and for me to repay you with $100 - you therefore have the concept of numbers in your mind, which accords with mine and most other people's.

Of course he wouldn't. He wouldn't allow me to drop a bowling ball on his feet either, and he would drive more carefully when the streets are wet, the same as anyone else. He get's up in the morning, pays bills, wipes his ass after a trip to the bathroom, - he uses the same tools as we do - math and empiricism, and finds them useful too.

He just likes the attention when he's bullshitting a crowd.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1273
  • Darwins +385/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #71 on: January 16, 2013, 07:16:37 PM »
Our Scripture passage for today is Exodus 33:20-23:

Quote
"But,” he said, “you cannot see my face[1]; for man shall not see me and live.” And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock; and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand[2] until I have passed by; then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back[3]; but my face shall not be seen.”

--Revised Standard Edition (emphasis added)
 1. Onnnnne component part!
 2. Twoooo component parts!
 3. Threeee component parts!  Ah-ah-ah-ah-aaaaah!

This passage clearly portrays Yahweh as being composed of component parts.  He is not irreducibly simple.  It doesn't matter if a theologian wants to argue that "face," "hand" and "back" don't mean the same thing for Yahweh that they do for a human.  The incontestable statement of this passage is that different parts of Yahweh have different effects.  His "face" kills on sight, like a Gorgon, or perhaps something out of the Cthulhu Mythos.  His "hand" can be used to shield against this effect.  His "back" does not kill on sight, but may be viewed with apparent safety. 

Of course it could be implied that a "face" would have substructures analogous to eyes, nose, etc. (unless Yahweh is Slenderman), that a "hand" implies at least one other "hand," and at least two or more digits or tendrils on each, that a "back" implies a "front," an outside that can be seen implies an inside, and so on, but it's not necessary to make those arguments.  We have here an indisputable statement that Yahweh is composed of multiple component parts.  These parts must be arranged in a certain way, with a certain set of interactions and integrations between them in order that, together, they can constitute a Yahweh.  Theologians are brilliant with their silly-putty logic, but given the claims of "orthodoxy" by the various Christian sects, it seems very likely that one could not rearrange Yahweh's parts, or take away one or more of them, or add other parts, and have the entity still be Yahweh. 

In this thread, Olivianus has rejected the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, presumably having some different doctrine of his own to explain and describe the whole "Father, Son, Holy Ghost" thing.  If the Catholics are right, then Olivianus is a heretic, not a Christian.  If Olivianus is right, then the Catholics (and most mainstream Protestants who accept the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds) are heretics.  For most of Christian history, a person's eternal salvation could depend on getting the right answers on the structure and composition of Yahweh.  It follows then, that any significant rearrangement or addition/subtraction of parts would make the resulting god[4] "not-Yahweh," not the One True GodTM.

So, it has now been shown that Yahweh has to be one particular arrangement of some specific number of component parts, or he is not Yahweh.  From this, it follows that "Number" is ontologically prior to "Yahweh."  Therefore, "Yahweh" cannot "account" for the existence of numbers.  Instead, numbers, such as the number of his component parts, must exist before he can.

For bonus points, I could also point out that in order for Yahweh's component parts to add up to a Yahweh, there would need to be generalized operating principles that describe the interaction and integration of said component parts, and that the Yahweh-parts must behave in accordance with these principles; otherwise they could add up to an Isis or a Shoggoth or something else.  In other words, before Yahweh can exist as Yahweh, there has to be some form of physics that applies to his component parts, to him, and to whatever dimension or realm he dwells in.  In the passage above, Yahweh can be seen, which means he gives off and/or reflects light.  For a human to see his "face" is fatal, and he cannot just will it to be otherwise.  This means he is subject to the generalized operating principles that govern his nature.

Therefore, Yahweh is not prior to, and cannot "account" for, the generalized operating principles[5] of Universe.[6]  Since we have Existence (Yahweh's component parts must exist before they can be integrated into a Yahweh), physics, and number all ontologically prior to Yahweh, we have the whole basis of science without any need, or even any basis logically, to appeal to Yahweh to "account" for them as a First Cause/Prime Mover/Ground of Being.  Any arguments pointing toward some sort of irreducibly simple First Cause/Prime Mover/Ground of Being as metaphysically "Necessary" for the existence of Existence, or Number, or Generalized Operating Principles do not point to Yahweh, but rather toward something else.

Edit: spelling
 4. Assuming the result was a god, rather than a quivering messy puddle of spirit-goo.
 5. A more accurate term than "'laws' of physics."
 6. When I use the term "Universe," capital-U, I am speaking of the sum of everything that exists, including any deities, supernatural realms and whatnot that might be postulated to exist.  In this kind of context, I use "Cosmos" to refer to that which originated from (our) Big Bang.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 07:23:13 PM by kcrady »
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1273
  • Darwins +385/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #72 on: January 16, 2013, 10:33:40 PM »
Having received in the historical order-the genus of being, the self attestation of the coherency of scripture-the logical order of propositions-the genus of epistemology, my ego wakes up to the reality of its regeneration. The knowledge of my existence and the assurance of my salvation is thus implied from the teaching of scripture and the conviction that the scripture is true.

The Bible speaks of men having a body yes. I have a physical form depending on your defintion of the word physical. Physical is something positive but my knowledge of it is only negative. Thus something physical is not something intellectual or spiritual.

Shorter Olivianus: "The Bible; therefore, I am."  Descartes must be laughing his skeletal ass off.  You sure are lucky to have been born after the Fourth Century C.E., otherwise you wouldn't exist--presumably like all of those other people who were born, lived their lives, raised their children, and perished before there was any such thing as "scripture." 

Also, this:

Having received in the historical order-the genus of being, the self attestation of the coherency of scripture

You realize this Forum has an entire section all about debunking that one, right?
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1273
  • Darwins +385/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #73 on: January 16, 2013, 11:30:35 PM »
Let me guess... is it god?

That answer simpliciter would be unsatisfying. It depends on what kind of God one believes in. I believe the only God that can provide the complexity for the distinctions necessary for numbers is the Christian God of the Bible who has a mind and makes man according to that image. Thus the ultimate principle is not a monad. I think Pythagoras had no coherent explanation of how multiplicity extended from the Monad, which makes me wonder: do atheists who believe in the reality of numbers believe in a Parmenidian One?

And this, right here, shows that for you this whole exercise is just a gigantic game of special pleading.  Everybody else (Pythagoreans, etc.) must "account for" and "justify" every tiny element of their world-view against an enormous tide of hyper-"skepticism" that aims to pick their words apart down to the sub-quantum scale, while you just say, "Magic Man dun it, 'cause he's got a mind," and expect all inquiry to immediately screech to a halt.  Your own beliefs, naturally, don't have to provide any coherent explanations for anything, or "account" for how a "mind" could exist prior to anything it could experience or think about while having no brain or any equivalent to think with, or time to think during, and so on.

If you required "coherent explanations" from Christianity the way you do of the Pythagoreans, you would have to pitch it right out the window post haste.  Christians have been providing incoherent explanations for things, and fighting tooth and nail with each other over them, since before they even called themselves "Christians."  Just look at how the epistles of Paul and James go at each other, or compare the Christology of the Book of Hebrews (Jesus was a celestial High Priest who offered his blood in a Heavenly Sanctuary) vs. the Christology of the Gospels (Jesus' blood was shed on Earth), or if you want to go back to Christianity's predecessors, notice how the authors of the Books of Job and Jonah tear into the Deuteronomistic theology.  Christianity's incoherence is self-evident: just look at the many and varied sects there were[1] before Emperor Constantine and what would become the Roman Catholic Church were able to hammer things together by force for awhile...  And as soon as they couldn't anymore: thousands of Christian sects.

But oh, no, Pythagoreanism is wrong because they didn't provide you a "coherent" explanation of how the Monad became the Dyad.  Oh and nevermind that the Pythagoreans deliberately sought to keep their teachings secret, and we're lucky to know anything about them at all.  Let's just assume that since no explanation that meets your incredibly exacting standards for "coherence" (never applied to your own beliefs, of course) has been passed down to our time, that they did not have one, and one could never be found.  Let's just ignore that the Pythagoreans run circles around Christianity when it comes to "coherence" and logical and empirical demonstrations of their ideas.  Because, if any nit, no matter how tiny, can be found to pick, their ideas can be dismissed out of hand and your ridiculous Bible-worshiping presuppositionalism can "win" by default.

Didn't your guy Jesus say something about getting the plank out of your eye before going after the speck in someone else's?  When it comes to "coherency" of one's world-view, you ought to take his advice.
 1. Ranging from Torah-observant "Jesus was a human prophet" Ebionites to Gnostics who taught that Yahweh was an evil Demiurge and Jesus was an emanation of the Goddess Sophia (Herself an emanation of the ineffable, transcendent Father) who came to set our spirits free from Yahweh's tyranny--oh, and by the way he was never actually a man of flesh and blood--and everything in between, including the proto-Catholics who split the difference.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #74 on: January 18, 2013, 08:10:48 AM »
The forum has once again shown that Empiricists must prove their principles by their conclusions instead of prove their conclusions by their principles.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6611
  • Darwins +523/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #75 on: January 18, 2013, 08:20:38 AM »
And yet you have no answer worthy of that name. You invent a god and attribute to it all that you cannot or will not understand.

Marvellous.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12203
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #76 on: January 18, 2013, 09:50:06 AM »
The forum has once again shown that Empiricists must prove their principles by their conclusions instead of prove their conclusions by their principles.

blah blah blah.  whatever. 

I'm still waiting for you to explain theistic math and why you are such a dick.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5012
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #77 on: January 18, 2013, 10:20:02 AM »
The forum has once again shown that Empiricists must prove their principles by their conclusions instead of prove their conclusions by their principles.

Looks like he got his ass handed to him again.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6350
  • Darwins +747/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #78 on: January 18, 2013, 11:36:43 AM »
The forum has once again shown that Empiricists must prove their principles by their conclusions instead of prove their conclusions by their principles.

You can't have principles and be a racist.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4834
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #79 on: January 18, 2013, 12:31:12 PM »
The forum has once again shown that Empiricists must prove their principles by their conclusions instead of prove their conclusions by their principles.
No, the forum has once again shown that Olivianus's beliefs are based off of flim-flam masquerading as logic.  Let's summarize.

1.  Olivianus believes that knowledge is only attainable if you have an "unchanging object perceived through qualitative change" which can reveal it.  This fancy terminology basically means something that doesn't change yet can be seen through changes it makes.

2.  Per #1, anyone who claims to have knowledge must have received it from an "unchanging object of knowledge".

3.  Because science does not depend on an "unchanging object of knowledge" to 'reveal' things, Olivianus believes it is circular in nature (that science makes assumptions which are proven by the conclusion).

4.  Olivianus believes that biblical scripture is coherent through all of history, therefore it must have been revealed.

5.  Per #4, biblical scripture must have come from an "unchanging object of knowledge".

The problem is, while his arguments might be logical in nature, they are also completely useless.  The first problem is that we have no way to actually prove that an "unchanging object of knowledge" exists in the first place, making it not useful for checking knowledge against.

Second, the fact that a logical proposition is coherent does not prove that it is true, it simply proves that it is coherent.  It is entirely possible to have contradictory propositions be coherent with themselves, even though they cannot both be true.  For that matter, it is entirely possible to show that something that cannot be true is coherent.  Without a way to verify the truth value of a logical proposition, simply showing that it is coherent is not useful.

Third, biblical scripture is not coherent.  There are many inconsistencies within scripture, both in Bibles printed today, and in texts that have been preserved.  Something that is inconsistent cannot be coherent.  Furthermore, there is no way to show that biblical scripture was ever coherent in the first place.  Indeed, the likelihood is that it never was at all.  The fact that Christians required the Council of Nicea to decide what was legitimate scripture and what wasn't is a powerful argument against the idea that it was ever based on a single coherent text.

That rather thoroughly demolishes Olivianus's argument against science.  If we have no unchanging objects of knowledge in the first place, and thus no way to have knowledge 'revealed' to us, then the fact that science and math are not based off of such things is meaningless.

Offline kcrady

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1273
  • Darwins +385/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Your Friendly Neighborhood Cephalopod Overlord
    • My blog
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #80 on: January 18, 2013, 10:22:58 PM »
The forum has once again shown that Empiricists must prove their principles by their conclusions instead of prove their conclusions by their principles.

Is this a flounce then?

The beauty of empiricism is that we don't have to do either.  Our conclusions aren't woven from cunningly crafted self-referential syllogisms or intricate webs of theological loop-o-planes and spaghetti logic.  Instead, the empirical method gives us the ability to test our hypotheses against reality itself, and derive our conclusions from what reality shows us.  And the thing about reality is, it works anyway.  If we concoct a flawed experiment or let our biases cloud our vision, reality works anyway.  So long as we make reality our foundation and final court of appeal, our errors will be revealed and we can update our models.  Reality is our inescapable protector against our human foibles and biases and the cognitive death spirals of theology, because...even when we're wrong, it works anyway.  Even when someone gets as trapped as you are in the mirror-maze of your own presuppositions, pseudo-logic, and religious narratives, so confused that you can stand on wet streets and doubt their wetness...  It.  Works.  Anyway.  The very fact that you are typing your bafflegab at us over a computer network is proof of this.

So, the validity of our understanding of reality isn't based on how good we are at weaving tales that "account" for things in our minds.  Instead, it comes from the observed behavior of reality itself, reality that we can't make go away even if we wanted to.  Which means, we don't have to just cross our fingers and hope that the hoary old book our parents handed down to us (Bible?  Koran?  Pyramid Texts?  Upanishads?) should just happen to be the "right" one on which to erect a structure of presuppositions, biases, blinkered circular reasoning and indoctrinated delusion.  Reality "accounts" for itself and makes itself the valid starting point by the very fact of its being inescapably real.
"The question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks."

--Greta Christina

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #81 on: January 24, 2013, 11:45:15 PM »
The forum desperately seeks to find something wrong with me because they cannot answer the problems before them. This thread was not about Olivianus, it was about secular philosophy.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12236
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #82 on: January 24, 2013, 11:51:17 PM »
And if you were able to hold up your side of the discussion, it might have gone somewhere.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4834
  • Darwins +557/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #83 on: January 25, 2013, 12:09:58 AM »
The forum desperately seeks to find something wrong with me because they cannot answer the problems before them. This thread was not about Olivianus, it was about secular philosophy.
No, it was about your (incorrect) take on things.  You took your own belief system (objects of knowledge, unchanging things that can be perceived through constant change, etc) and attempted to apply it to what you thought "secularism" was about.  The thing is, your belief system has no relevance to us.  We simply don't follow your belief that knowledge can only come from some unchanging thing that is perceived through constant change.  So as a result, your idea of secular philosophy is about as wrong as it can be, because you're basing it on an irrelevant premise.

That's what we're trying to get across to you.  You came into this forum with a completely wrong idea, and compounded that error with an utter unwillingness to actually listen to anything that we're saying to you.  As a result, you consistently misinterpret the reason you're not making any headway - it's not because of anything you did (at least in your own mind), it's because "the forum seeks to find something wrong with you", or other such things.  Until you're willing to reconsider your actions and beliefs, you'll continue to be misled by them.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12027
  • Darwins +307/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #84 on: January 25, 2013, 02:45:08 AM »
I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII...um...KKK[1].

-Nam
 1. or is that http://stormfront.org ? I forget -- I hate racists.
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously - Humphrey

Offline Fiji

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1263
  • Darwins +85/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #85 on: January 25, 2013, 03:31:08 AM »
^^

Nam, when my mom still believed, I got dragged to church every sunday, not exactly kicking and screaming, but certainly skulking and grumbling.
Had to do something to keep my mind busy. There were evangelical children's books there.[1] But I burned through them in a few weeks, so I turned to ... Roman numerals. Had this little notebook where I'd write numerals. XL, XLI, XLII, XLIII, XLIV, XLV, ...
Gave up when I got to the point where I got tired of writing strings of M's ... luckily, this more or less coincided with my mom ditching her faith.

Anyway, I suppose everyone here knows Numberphile on the youtubes ... what?! You don't?!
Here's a video of theirs that speaks to existance of numbers ...
 1. was I *gasp* NOT the only kid struggling with this issue?
Science: I'll believe it when I see it
Faith: I'll see it when I believe it

Schrodinger's thunderdome! One cat enters and one MIGHT leave!

Without life, god has no meaning.

Offline Olivianus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 176
  • Darwins +2/-42
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: What is the justification for the existence of numbers?
« Reply #86 on: January 25, 2013, 03:43:28 AM »
jaimehlers


Quote
Sensation is produced by the effects of electromagnetism.

I did not ask what its source was. I asked what it was.
 
Quote
Vision is the direct detection

You are conflating sensation with perception. 

Quote
of electromagnetic radiation, hearing is the detection of vibrations

All you are doing is substituting the word “detection” for sensation and perception.

Quote
Perception is caused by the makeup of the body's physical structures that allow for sensations; i.e.,

You are again describing the source of of perception. You are not defining perception.

Quote
Abstract ideas are derived from perception, because they are actually based on emotions (which are based on perceptions).

You have conflated an idea with an emotion. You have not shown how emotion causes cognitive activity. The fact is, it is cognitive activity that precedes emotion as you just said,

Quote
We perceive something, so we have an emotional reaction to it.

You see the cognitive activity comes before the reaction here but then later you say:

Quote
An emotional reaction causes an abstract idea (or a concrete one, depending on the circumstances).

Now this statement is also filled with error. An abstract idea is by definition something universal not particular. Thus an emotion, which corresponds to a particular event is not something universal but particular. You have thus failed to show how an emotion can produce an abstract idea.

Quote
This is a good example of why you cannot solely rely on logic.  Gill may have "proven" that language was impossible, yet it clearly exists;

Then you are proving your principles by your conclusions. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

Quote
we are using it to communicate with each other right now.  If language was actually impossible, we would not be able to have this argument, therefore it clearly is possible.

And I have an explanation for that but this thread is not about me it is about you. 

Quote
Therefore, the particular language does not matter provided we both have a sufficient understanding of it.

You are using the word “matter” ambiguously as you are with the word “understanding”. In the former you could mean “exist” in the genus of being or you could mean  “have a defined identity” in the genus of epistemology. In the latter, you could mean “operation” but seeing that you just admitted that Gill has made the endeavor impossible for an empiricist you have only asserted by ad hoc that you have this said understanding.

Quote
Your error is your attempt to rely on logic to resolve every question, even questions it is not suited to answer.

According to coherency theory, that is the way to demonstrate knowledge. Syllogisms are the paragon of knowledge, not empiricism. But again this thread is not about me but you.

Quote
If you try to use a hammer to pound in a nail, it does a very good job; but if you try to use it to drill a hole in a piece of wood, it will not work very well.  The same goes here.  All four of your attempts to refute individuation use logic, but logic is not good at refuting things that actually exist.

So then you admit then that the abstract does not exist. Aristotle took genus out of the category of substance I think you will have to admit it. Then you have admitted that abstract ideas and objects do not exist. This is just the black hole of empiricism. That means that just in the last paragraph that I am replying to these words that you typed have no justification whatsoever:

“If”, “to”, “a” “in”, “it”, “very”, “but”, “piece”, “same”, “All”, “four”, “of”, “refute”, “logic”, “good”, “exist”, “that”.

Are you starting to see the problem?

Quote
You are referring to the problem of induction.  Note that it is not the same thing as the induction fallacy.  The induction fallacy happens when a sample used for testing is found to not be representative of the whole.  The problem of induction is whether or not the information that we base an inductive conclusion on is representative of the whole or not, and the only way we can actually find out is to discover that it is not.  That does not make it a fallacy.

The conclusion is asserted first to be representative of the whole. That is asserting the consequent.

Quote
As I have so answered.

You did no such thing.

Quote
I addressed this in my earlier post.

A reply is not to be conflated with an  answer.

Quote
No, as I showed in my earlier post.  By declaring empiricism invalid, you have sabotaged your own argument.  The fact of the matter is that you cannot prove empiricism invalid without some way to test the validity of your premise.

Coherency theory, not empiricism. 

Quote
You are essentially arguing that you can do so with logic, but this is impossible, so it is nonsensical to make that claim.

You think it is impossible because you think an operation is a demonstration of truth, which Kline refuted. Kline showed that both Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometry had equal function. Function does not equal truth.

Quote
Your use of those logical proofs in this case were indeed attempts to confuse the issue.  Logical proofs cannot determine the validity of a premise, therefore giving me the choice of logical proofs to determine the validity of something makes no sense.

The coherency of the whole provides a self attestation to the postulate.

Quote
No, but you cannot determine that it is valid with logic.  It shares that with something that's subjective.

Yes I can. The coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.

Quote
No, it is my assertion that you cannot show that coherence theory is valid with just logic, because logic can not validate logic.

You are using the words “show” and “valid” as if I have not already admitted that my first premise is not proven. I admit it is a dogmatic affirmation, not a proven one. However, that does not mean it is an arbitrary one as the coherency of the set provides a self attestation of the postulate.

Quote
It is circular because you attempted to define atheism in such a way that it plethora would have found himself defending circular logic if he had agreed with your proposition.

Well I am trying to show you that all theories operate off of axioms or postulates.

Quote
Basically, you devised a catch-22Wiki (if atheism depends on empiricism, then it cannot be skeptical, because in order to be skeptical it cannot accept empiricism), a logical trap that relies on circular logic.


It does not rely on circular logic but on the reality that all theories require axioms and postulates.

Quote
As I have said multiple times in this post, you cannot verify logic with more logic.  You must use something else to verify it.  Normally, empiricism is used to verify logic, but you excluded that, so you have nothing you can use to verify your logic.

You are conflating  the genus of being with the genus of epistemology. By verify you could be referring to experience in the historical chronological order of things, or verify in the logical order of propositions.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 02:50:49 PM by Graybeard »