The Hurdles to the Causal Mathematics Hypothesis

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Thank you. Finally at least some people began to understand WHY math is so powerfull in predicting behavior of objects in universe.

Did you miss the part where I said you made a loop? A loop is a dead-end in a logical discussion (much like a paradox). I would have assumed that you knew this.

Simply because math is indeed a logic of existence I as said many times before.

But you have nothing to substantiate this claim, and all kinds of "hurdles" to overcome (not just mine anymore), before your belief is taken seriously.

Anything existing (object, phenomenon, concept, etc) can be labeled as "yes", or "1", or "+", or "truth", and the lack of thereof - as "no", or "0", or "-", or "false".

So any object which has the property to "exist" then shall obey logic (math) by definition.

If it shall all "obey logic" then why is there a theorem that dictates that mathematics itself is Incomplete? It appears that logic would be the only thing that didn't obey logic (if your belief is correct), but that would mean that there is a paradox at the heart of existence. Is that what you really believe?

Is not this obvious? I spend a lot of words trying to explain this clear issue to everyone yet only very few people understood.

You need to learn to distinguish between someone's not understanding you, and someone's disagreeing with you. The problem is how sure you are that you are right. This doesn't allow you to see merit in someone's disagreement, and you just construe it as a misunderstanding.

 

[Mentat]

I'm starting to believe that reasoning has prevailed over belief...

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
Did you miss the part where I said you made a loop? A loop is a dead-end in a logical discussion (much like a paradox). I would have assumed that you knew this.

Loop? Which one of your many logical errors do you call a loop?

 

[Hurkyl]

Loop? Which one of your many logical errors do you call a loop?

Woah, logical fallacy density readings are off the charts!

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat


Alexabder wrote:

Simply because math is indeed a logic of existence I as said many times before.

But you have nothing to substantiate this claim, and all kinds of "hurdles" to overcome (not just mine anymore), before your belief is taken seriously.

Looks like we have a memory problem here. I provided proof (equivalence of logic and existence) but you did not undertand it. Well, let's go over it once again then.

Recall those many posts of mine which explained you the origin of logiv and which you could answer nothing for. Let me remind them once more: Origin of logic (and math). Logic (thus math) starts with labeling of existence of object (of any object/phenomenon - God, universe, rock, ato, etc) by the symbol "1", or "yes", or "+", or "dot", or "true", "uno", etc (various civilizations use various symbolics). The lack (absense of existence) of object/phenomenon is labeled as "0", or "no", or "-", or "dash", or "false", or "nada", etc. We simply define those symbols as "existence" (of something particular) and "absense" (of this something).

So, as long as something exists this something obeys logic - simply because this is how logical symbols areDEFINED.

Comprehendo? If not, feel free to say so, and I'll repost this as many times as needed. I know that learning is sometimes slow process.
No problemo.

If it shall all "obey logic" then why is there a theorem that dictates that mathematics itself is Incomplete? It appears that logic would be the only thing that didn't obey logic (if your belief is correct), but that would mean that there is a paradox at the heart of existence. Is that what you really believe?

What theorem? Can you quote EXACTLY what that theorem says? Especially the part about violation of logic. Feel free to cut dumb lymann enterpretations of it (what we called paradox) and somebody's wrong personal opinion about it.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Mentat
You need to learn to distinguish between someone's not understanding you, and someone's disagreeing with you. The problem is how sure you are that you are right. This doesn't allow you to see merit in someone's disagreement, and you just construe it as a misunderstanding.

I am not claiming to be right or wrong. Nor do I try to convince you in something. You misunderstood. I respect your belief system and do NOT want to change it.

I just show you the origin of logic and math.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Loop? Which one of your many logical errors do you call a loop?

Are you completely daft, or are you just feigning ignorance? You were the one that made a loop. If you want to know where it is, re-read the post where I first said you made a loop.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
Looks like we have a memory problem here. I provided proof (equivalence of logic and existence) but you did not undertand it. Well, let's go over it once again then.

Recall those many posts of mine which explained you the origin of logiv and which you could answer nothing for. Let me remind them once more: Origin of logic (and math). Logic (thus math) starts with labeling of existence of object

This is exactly my point, the object already exists, while logic and mathematics are just the things we use to "label" them. Are you sure this is your stance?

So, as long as something exists this something obeys logic - simply because this is how logical symbols areDEFINED.

That's not what you said, you said that logic is how you "label" them. That means that the object is not "obeying" logic, it (and it's behavior) is being labelled (or described) by logic and mathematics.

What theorem? Can you quote EXACTLY what that theorem says? Especially the part about violation of logic. Feel free to cut dumb lymann enterpretations of it (what we called paradox) and somebody's wrong personal opinion about it.

Does not Godel's Theorem dictate that no reasoning system (including mathematics) can be used to define/validate itself, without resulting in a loop?

 

[Hurkyl]

Logic (thus math) starts with labeling of existence of object (of any object/phenomenon - God, universe, rock, ato, etc) by the symbol "1", or "yes", or "+", or "dot", or "true", "uno", etc (various civilizations use various symbolics).

I'll presume you just misspoke, and don't mean to imply that this is actually the point at which mathematical logic begins, for among other things you've completely skipped over propositional logic and jumped straight into describing a symbol of some first-order language.


Anyways, right off the bat you introduce a departure from pure logic. You introduce the unary relation "existance". Unary relations are not logical symbols, but are instead supplemental symbols used in first-order languages; the "glue" that connects some concept with first-order logic.

Curiously, though, you have stopped at this point. You've left the interesting questions unanswered. You haven't presented a logical structure built upon your language. You haven't provided any axioms written in your language. And most importantly, you haven't argued that the "physical universe" (whatever that is) is a model of your theory.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Alexander
I am not claiming to be right or wrong. Nor do I try to convince you in something. You misunderstood. I respect your belief system and do NOT want to change it.

I just show you the origin of logic and math.

Only according to your opinion of them.

 

[AutisticSavant]

"The universe evolves through principles, through pictures. Einstein looked at the universe through pictures, not through the world of mathematics. Mathematics is book-keeping in some sense. It allows us to keep track of the picture. For example, take a bed sheet. Rumple the bed sheet. An ant walking along that rumpled bed sheet would say, “I am tugged by a force – I’ll call it gravity. There’s a star here tugging me, there’s a planet there tugging me.” Well we look at the ant from hyperspace and we laugh and we say that’s silly. There is no gravity at all. You are being buffeted by the curvature of space itself."

Kaku