06 Aug 04
Originally posted by ivanhoeHere is my interpretation of the quote.
Oh, Cribs .... don't say such things, I never said it anyway.
Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
Here's a link for you in case you're interested in developing your views .... *coughs* ....... 😉
It's very interesting but a bit too difficult for me ... lol ....
"According to Katalin Havas dialectical contradictions are fully ...[text shortened]... re."
http://www.ifs.csic.es/sorites/lp/articles/logica/havas.htm
😀 😉
"We are unable to understand or communicate our ideas clearly
enough to translate them into formal logic prepositions. The
solution is to resort to a fuzzy system in which vague prepositions
are allowed to be stated and manipulated, rather than continuing
to ponder and revise our formal logic prepositions until they
represent our true ideas."
06 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Cribswell that is certainly interesting.
I used to work at NASA and at a DOE particle
accelerator
i have a question in reference to your statement to ivanhoe (which though it doesn't deal with violence, is related to dialectic):
"Is the Bible the Word of God? Why? Because it says so!"
is this not purely axiomatic, admittedly circular - but still axiomatic?
how is something like this different from say a Peano axiom such as:
There is a natural number 0.
now admittedly, it is not saying There is a natural number 0. Why? Because the axiom says so.
or is it?
in friendship,
prad
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfSure, the circular prepostion about the Bible could
well that is certainly interesting.
i have a question in reference to your statement to ivanhoe (which though it doesn't deal with violence, is related to dialectic):
"Is the Bible the Word of God? Why? Because it says so!"
is this not purely axiomatic, admittedly circular - but still axiomatic?
how is something like this different from say a Peano ...[text shortened]... There is a natural number 0. Why? Because the axiom says so.
or is it?
in friendship,
prad
certainly be taken as an axiom. The problem arises
when people won't admit up front that they do
hold it as an axiom. Instead, they often try to apply
reasoning to show that it is true. In other words,
they attempt to use reason to convice somebody else
of the truth of their axiom. This is a misuse of axioms.
For the natural number axiom, I would say the same
analysis applies. In other words, if you and I agree on
taking 0's existence as axiomatic, then we can accomplish
some wonderful things using mathematics. But one thing
that we should NOT set out to accomplish is trying to
convince somebody who does not believe in 0's existence
that is does exist by trying to logically show that our axiom
is true.
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by rapalla7Hey! This is a great place to use dialectical logic!
What is the topic again???
The topic both is and isn't about the causes of violence.
The dual nature of the topic is due to the thread's changing course
over time!
I'm a convert to the new system. And I'm not!
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by Cribsagreement on both paragraphs and rec'd!
This is a misuse of axioms.
an axiom by virtue of its nature cannot be proven via argument to be true.
also as you said, by accepting certain axioms such as the existence of 0 (or even the existence of god), perhaps a lot of good can be done.
in friendship,
prad
06 Aug 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfI completely agree. Those with a faith in God,
also as you said, by accepting certain axioms such as the existence of 0 (or even the existence of god), perhaps a lot of good can be done.
however, want something more meaningful out
of their "axiom" than any axiom can really provide.
In other words, the axiom "God does not exist"
is not really qualitatively any different from "God does exist."
They are just two different starting points from which
to reason. Those who have faith don't want to acknowledge
this equality, even though, as you say, their choice of axiom can
lead to good.
Mathematicians don't have this problem. They
are happy working in real space ("Imaginary numbers
don't exist" ) or in imaginary space ("Imaginary numbers
do exist" ), depending on their needs.
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
3 edits
Originally posted by Cribsthere is nothing wrong in wanting something more meaningful out of an axiom, because the axiom isn't what provides it - it is one's 'logic' that does.
Those with a faith in God,
however, want something more meaningful out
of their "axiom" than any axiom can really provide.
mathematicians working with real or imaginary numbers certainly want something more than "there exists 0"
however, the point i believe you are trying to make is more along the lines of what sort of axiom do you really accept?
for instance, if you accept the axiom of a violent, jealous and intolerant god, then you may well reap exactly what you axiomate and start thinking you are the sole possessor of the keys to the gates of hell.
if on the other hand, you accept the axiom that god is understanding, compassionate and redemptive, as any loving parent might be then you may choose to be that way yourself and work towards creating a bit of heaven wherever you are and leave the keys to hell in more suitable hands where they belong.
in friendship,
prad
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsAs an estimater of comercial plumbing, I deal in numbers that do not exist. I make up numbers into the millions of dollars of real money.
I completely agree. Those with a faith in God,
however, want something more meaningful out
of their "axiom" than any axiom can really provide.
In other words, the axiom "God does not exist"
is not really qualitatively any different from "God does exist."
They are just two different starting points from which
to reason. Those who have faith don ...[text shortened]... in imaginary space ("Imaginary numbers
do exist" ), depending on their needs.
Dr. Cribs
these numbers...if I get the job; will turn into real numbers that mean income for our employees, buildings for the owners, taxes for the government. I deal in virtual numbers that are real.
How does that fit in?
Mike
06 Aug 04
2 edits
Originally posted by rapalla7geewiz!! no wonder plumbers are so expensive!!!
I make up numbers into the millions of dollars of real money.
(cribs' imaginary numbers are the set of complex numbers resulting from trying to take the square root of -1. they can be useful in a variety of scenarios. they are not virtual numbers as in your case. he is only trying to say that mathematicians are happy working with both real and complex numbers, but i am still curious to see how he answers your question which, i find, in light of what we are discussing is an intriguing one.)
in friendship,
prad
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by pradtfEveryone loves to see their plumber, but not the bill!
geewiz!! no wonder plumbers are so expensive!!!
(cribs' imaginary numbers are the set of complex numbers resulting from trying to take the square root of -1. they can be useful in a variety of scenarios. they are not virtual numbers as in your case. he is only trying to say that mathematicians are happy working with both real and complex numbers, but i am ...[text shortened]... which, i find, in light of what we are discussing is an intriguing one.)
in friendship,
prad
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsJust like the zeolot I have faith in my virtual numbers. When I bid out the new department of ag buildings I had a total of 39,000 man hours. This would keep alot of people turning wrenches. When I threw my virtual number into the public opening, I was contractually obligated to cough up 5% of the bid if after I was the apparent low which in this case would have cost our company $850,000.00, and that is if we wanted to withdraw our bid.
I completely agree. Those with a faith in God,
however, want something more meaningful out
of their "axiom" than any axiom can really provide.
In other words, the axiom "God does not exist"
is not really qualitatively any different from "God does exist."
They are just two different starting points from which
to reason. Those who have faith don ...[text shortened]... in imaginary space ("Imaginary numbers
do exist" ), depending on their needs.
Dr. Cribs
You can put a lot of faith in the unknown.
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by rapalla7This is how it fits in...
As an estimater of comercial plumbing, I deal in numbers that do not exist. I make up numbers into the millions of dollars of real money.
these numbers...if I get the job; will turn into real numbers that mean income for our employees, buildings for the owners, taxes for the government. I deal in virtual numbers that are real.
How does that fit in?
Mike
Abstract numbers are a useful concept, whether
or not your ontology holds that they "really exist"
or whether they are just an invention of man.
Your example proves that they are useful, because
even though you are not physically thumbing through
real bills, your concept of "number," and the underlying
axioms that lead to counting and addition, do lead
you to a non-abstract, real-world estimate or contract.
In other words, without axioms and the undefined concept
of number, you couldn't really do your job of estimating.
And the fact that you successfully apply these abstract techniques
to your concrete job shows that the chosen axioms (i.e., those of the
sort that 100 > 10, and 1+1=2) are well-chosen.
Dr. Cribs
06 Aug 04
Originally posted by CribsIn my world 1+1 does not always equal 2😉
This is how it fits in...
Abstract numbers are a useful concept, whether
or not your ontology holds that they "really exist"
or whether they are just an invention of man.
Your example proves that they are useful, because
even though you are not physically thumbing through
real bills, your concept of "number," and the underlying
axioms that lead ...[text shortened]... chosen axioms (i.e., those of the
sort that 100 > 10, and 1+1=2) are well-chosen.
Dr. Cribs