On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[SpeedOfSound]

The only point to be made here is that Zeno's argument was a mistake

The point I have made - which was a valid one - you ignored. You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Also, in the post you cite, I threw down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks that Zeno has been refuted. Feel free to start a thread about it and I'll bring over my knife and fork.

Oh Gawd... another charge of the Conquistador. Where will he fall off his horse this time?

[jamest]

The only point to be made here is that Zeno's argument was a mistake

The point I have made - which was a valid one - you ignored. You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Also, in the post you cite, I threw down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks that Zeno has been refuted. Feel free to start a thread about it and I'll bring over my knife and fork.

Oh Gawd... another charge of the Conquistador. Where will he fall off his horse this time?

I'll be walking over... John Wayne style.

[SpeedOfSound]

The only point to be made here is that Zeno's argument was a mistake

The point I have made - which was a valid one - you ignored. You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Also, in the post you cite, I threw down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks that Zeno has been refuted. Feel free to start a thread about it and I'll bring over my knife and fork.

Oh Gawd... another charge of the Conquistador. Where will he fall off his horse this time?

I'll be walking over... John Wayne style.

Given your past charges walking would be safer. Safer still would be to walk over as Woody Allen style.

[Little Idiot]

wiki says
"The first four statements are general statements about equality; in modern treatments these are often considered axioms of pure logic."

Wiki isn't saying that Peno's axioms are the product of pure logic. It is saying that those axioms also serve as axioms for pure logic. I.e. law of identity A=A etc.

Thats a different way of looking at what it says...hrmm need more information.
Both your own and my own interpretation seem to be possible.

[Little Idiot]

Alternative axiom 1. Absolute truth is that everything, including absolute truth, changes
Alternative axiom 2. Existence is change

your axiom 1 is self contradictory, even if we express it as absolute reality.
If axiom 1 does not change, it does not obay axiom 1. Therefore axiom 1 is untrue because the example (axiom 1) contradicts axiom 1 by not changing.
If axiom 1 changes, it is not an axiom. therefore axiom 1 is untrue because it is not a 'true axiom which holds true'.

By the way, welcome to metaphysics.
Enjoy doing metaphysics and establishing knowledge with out empirircal evidence.

We are not 'establishing knowledge', we are 'making up shit'. It is inventing a fantasy world. We define some rules and then write about the world in light of those rules. We can make the rules more or less formal. We can have precise or approximate results. All of it remains fantasy.

If you want to call expertise in the lore of Middle Earth, or Klingon mythology, or the mathematics of 42-dimensional hyper-space-time-spin-oompah, 'knowledge' related to 'absolute reality' that is your affair, but it seems entirely unjustified to me.

Mere consistency of reasoning with a set of arbitrary axioms is not a route to knowledge of reality.

If we apprehend our axioms from observation, such as A=A and 1+1 = 2, then we stand on the rock of empiricism, not metaphysics.

If we can use our powers for gaining knowledge to show what reality can not be, as I did show your alternative axiom 1 to be self contradictory, we can deduce from what is left what reality can be.

Remember, the 'goal' here is only to formulate the highest possible statement about absolute reality possible in human language.
Knowing what it is not is an early step on the way.
If it turns out to be
"absolute reality is not X, Y, Z but it either A or B" then thats it.

However, given this goal, it is an achieveable goal.

That would all be good but absolute reality is a bullshit idea. Can't imagine what that would even begin to mean.

Hrmm?
So the idea of something that doesnt change, a 'reality which doesnt change' has not occured to you before despite the experience that everything in our world changes?

That I find hard to accept, from an intelligent thinking man such as yourself.

[Little Idiot]

in modern treatments these are often considered axioms of pure logic.

Note the phrase 'often considered'. To me this implies that there are other ways of viewing them, or even that this definition is in dispute. Wiki does not cite provenance for this view or identify these 'modern treatments', so how can you say that this is generally accepted and not a hotly disputed and controversial stance?

Further, do you understand correctly what the article means by 'axioms of pure logic'? It is not made clear in the text. Graham has interpreted it in a completely different way that is also in keeping with the phrase as presented.

Latching onto a phrase in wikipedia that might be read as confirming your POV does not constitute sound reasoning. It should be treated as a stepping off point for deeper investigation.

It is a seemingly valid way to understand the statement in Wiki, to decide we need to look at the laws of logic and compare them to the first four axioms, to decide which is the better reading.
You are the 'maths man' any good links to check out or any thoughts?

[Little Idiot]

LI.

Check out 19:51 on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f477FnTe1M0

Penrose I suspect is going to make an argument for extra special sauce based on understanding of mathematical truths. But I thought this slide he has up is illustative of our disagreement here.

Thats a long clip; be back in over an hour, with a head full of Penrose, no doubt
Goes to Tarski also.

We have R which we accept. The axioms. We must just accept them as true. The new knowledge is G(R) which is deduced. But G(R) cannot be proved using R alone.

You must have reasons outside of R for accepting R. This in our argument would be empirical evidence.

???

[Little Idiot]

Alternative axiom 1. Absolute truth is that everything, including absolute truth, changes
Alternative axiom 2. Existence is change

your axiom 1 is self contradictory, even if we express it as absolute reality.
If axiom 1 does not change, it does not obay axiom 1. Therefore axiom 1 is untrue because the example (axiom 1) contradicts axiom 1 by not changing.
If axiom 1 changes, it is not an axiom. therefore axiom 1 is untrue because it is not a 'true axiom which holds true'.

By the way, welcome to metaphysics.
Enjoy doing metaphysics and establishing knowledge with out empirircal evidence.

We are not 'establishing knowledge', we are 'making up shit'. It is inventing a fantasy world. We define some rules and then write about the world in light of those rules. We can make the rules more or less formal. We can have precise or approximate results. All of it remains fantasy.

If you want to call expertise in the lore of Middle Earth, or Klingon mythology, or the mathematics of 42-dimensional hyper-space-time-spin-oompah, 'knowledge' related to 'absolute reality' that is your affair, but it seems entirely unjustified to me.

Mere consistency of reasoning with a set of arbitrary axioms is not a route to knowledge of reality.

If we apprehend our axioms from observation, such as A=A and 1+1 = 2, then we stand on the rock of empiricism, not metaphysics.

If we can use our powers for gaining knowledge to show what reality can not be, as I did show your alternative axiom 1 to be self contradictory, we can deduce from what is left what reality can be.

Remember, the 'goal' here is only to formulate the highest possible statement about absolute reality possible in human language.
Knowing what it is not is an early step on the way.
If it turns out to be
"absolute reality is not X, Y, Z but it either A or B" then thats it.

However, given this goal, it is an achieveable goal.

You have already said you don't consider that logic applies to reality and the logic which does apply within existence. Since you exist and apply logic (sometimes erroneously) you are not making any reference to reality in doing so, by your own axioms!

Thats not the case at all. I said logic can not apply 'within reality' but logic obviously can be applied within space time. It is not contrary to use logic about reality from within space time.

Saying what something is not could play a role in finding out what it is, if what remains is known. I could say 'An oglifrack is not as small as a mouse'. Since that leaves known possible sizes larger than a mouse I may have said something about oglifracks. If also say 'oglifracks have no size' then the two statements together, while being logically consistent, say nothing about oglifracks.[edit]If also say 'oglifracks have no size' then the two statements are logically consistent but the first stamenent says nothing about oglifracks[/edit].

I assume you are attempting to mock my point. But the point is good, and already has proven that certain ideas of what is reality are wrong. One common example being 'the totality of the cosmos' which is ruled out of a claim as absolute reality because it changes.

Indeed, your alternative axiom 1 did not last long, and I note you did not bother to try resurect it from the stake of certainty which I plunged through it's meatphysical heart.
The fact is, Graham and SD, you may mock as you wish, but tangeable knowledge has been produced on the nature of reality, despite the unwillingness of you both to contribute to metaphysics.

You do see the point, I hope; your hypothesis 'alternative axiom 1' seemed like a viable alternative axiom, because from your perspective we are not under any limits of what we can say in metaphysics about reality, but in fact we are under very tight constraints of what we can say about reality.
It is true, that metaphysical speculation about mundane things can be a long dry and hollow event. But it is equally true that knowledge of absolute reality can be established, and has been established in this thread infront of your eyes.

Can you refute my axiom 1?
No. If you can, do. If you dont, then you cant.
Can you refute my deductions of reality this far?
No.
Do you have any grounds against my claim thus far apart from personal disbelief from prior bais?
No.
Can my model dismiss lesser models?
Yes. 'Alternative axiom 1' did not last long.
Has my hypothesis shown predictive power?
Yes - I could dismiss as un-demonstrated certain claims made by SoS in a field of which I have no knowledge using the model.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

in modern treatments these are often considered axioms of pure logic.

Note the phrase 'often considered'. To me this implies that there are other ways of viewing them, or even that this definition is in dispute. Wiki does not cite provenance for this view or identify these 'modern treatments', so how can you say that this is generally accepted and not a hotly disputed and controversial stance?

Further, do you understand correctly what the article means by 'axioms of pure logic'? It is not made clear in the text. Graham has interpreted it in a completely different way that is also in keeping with the phrase as presented.

Latching onto a phrase in wikipedia that might be read as confirming your POV does not constitute sound reasoning. It should be treated as a stepping off point for deeper investigation.

It is a seemingly valid way to understand the statement in Wiki, to decide we need to look at the laws of logic and compare them to the first four axioms, to decide which is the better reading.
You are the 'maths man' any good links to check out or any thoughts?

I have edited the wiki page to add a "Citation needed" tag on that sentence. Hopefully, that will be quicker than spending all day in a library studying books on mathematical logic.

[SpeedOfSound]

Has my hypothesis shown predictive power?
Yes - I could dismiss as un-demonstrated certain claims made by SoS in a field of which I have no knowledge using the model.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about here but we have a whole thread setup so you can explain it.

[Little Idiot]

LI.

Check out 19:51 on this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f477FnTe1M0

Penrose I suspect is going to make an argument for extra special sauce based on understanding of mathematical truths. But I thought this slide he has up is illustative of our disagreement here.

Thats a long clip; be back in over an hour, with a head full of Penrose, no doubt
Goes to Tarski also.

We have R which we accept. The axioms. We must just accept them as true. The new knowledge is G(R) which is deduced. But G(R) cannot be proved using R alone.

You must have reasons outside of R for accepting R. This in our argument would be empirical evidence.

???

EDIT;
err, opps. Dunno how this post got here.

[Little Idiot]

in modern treatments these are often considered axioms of pure logic.

Note the phrase 'often considered'. To me this implies that there are other ways of viewing them, or even that this definition is in dispute. Wiki does not cite provenance for this view or identify these 'modern treatments', so how can you say that this is generally accepted and not a hotly disputed and controversial stance?

Further, do you understand correctly what the article means by 'axioms of pure logic'? It is not made clear in the text. Graham has interpreted it in a completely different way that is also in keeping with the phrase as presented.

Latching onto a phrase in wikipedia that might be read as confirming your POV does not constitute sound reasoning. It should be treated as a stepping off point for deeper investigation.

It is a seemingly valid way to understand the statement in Wiki, to decide we need to look at the laws of logic and compare them to the first four axioms, to decide which is the better reading.
You are the 'maths man' any good links to check out or any thoughts?

I have edited the wiki page to add a "Citation needed" tag on that sentence. Hopefully, that will be quicker than spending all day in a library studying books on mathematical logic.

Thats a good idea.
<lie = on>
Obviously, I was going to suggest that.
</lie>

[Little Idiot]

Has my hypothesis shown predictive power?
Yes - I could dismiss as un-demonstrated certain claims made by SoS in a field of which I have no knowledge using the model.

I don't know what the fuck you are talking about here but we have a whole thread setup so you can explain it.

Oh dont be shy, you know what I mean you little tease!

BTW I just actually looked at your thread for the first time, so I will come and put you right

[Surendra Darathy]

You're quite adept at ignoring my relevant points, aren't you?

Just fucking tell me where I'm short in my accounts, James, and leave out the drama.

[GrahamH]

<snip>

If we can use our powers for gaining knowledge to show what reality can not be, as I did show your alternative axiom 1 to be self contradictory, we can deduce from what is left what reality can be.

Remember, the 'goal' here is only to formulate the highest possible statement about absolute reality possible in human language.
Knowing what it is not is an early step on the way.
If it turns out to be
"absolute reality is not X, Y, Z but it either A or B" then thats it.

However, given this goal, it is an achieveable goal.

You have already said you don't consider that logic applies to reality and the logic which does apply within existence. Since you exist and apply logic (sometimes erroneously) you are not making any reference to reality in doing so, by your own axioms!

Thats not the case at all. I said logic can not apply 'within reality' but logic obviously can be applied within space time. It is not contrary to use logic about reality from within space time.

Saying what something is not could play a role in finding out what it is, if what remains is known. I could say 'An oglifrack is not as small as a mouse'. Since that leaves known possible sizes larger than a mouse I may have said something about oglifracks. If also say 'oglifracks have no size' then the two statements together, while being logically consistent, say nothing about oglifracks.[edit]If also say 'oglifracks have no size' then the two statements are logically consistent but the first stamenent says nothing about oglifracks[/edit].

I assume you are attempting to mock my point. But the point is good, and already has proven that certain ideas of what is reality are wrong. One common example being 'the totality of the cosmos' which is ruled out of a claim as absolute reality because it changes.

Indeed, your alternative axiom 1 did not last long, and I note you did not bother to try resurect it from the stake of certainty which I plunged through it's meatphysical heart.
The fact is, Graham and SD, you may mock as you wish, but tangeable knowledge has been produced on the nature of reality, despite the unwillingness of you both to contribute to metaphysics.

You do see the point, I hope; your hypothesis 'alternative axiom 1' seemed like a viable alternative axiom, because from your perspective we are not under any limits of what we can say in metaphysics about reality, but in fact we are under very tight constraints of what we can say about reality.
It is true, that metaphysical speculation about mundane things can be a long dry and hollow event. But it is equally true that knowledge of absolute reality can be established, and has been established in this thread infront of your eyes.

Can you refute my axiom 1?
No. If you can, do. If you dont, then you cant.
Can you refute my deductions of reality this far?
No.
Do you have any grounds against my claim thus far apart from personal disbelief from prior bais?
No.
Can my model dismiss lesser models?
Yes. 'Alternative axiom 1' did not last long.
Has my hypothesis shown predictive power?
Yes - I could dismiss as un-demonstrated certain claims made by SoS in a field of which I have no knowledge using the model.

I accept that my alternative axiom 1 was dubious, but that is beside the point.
The point was not to argue for that, but to challenge you to consider what other axioms might seem valid given complete abandonment of empiricism. What basis is there for establishing absolutely true axioms? WHat would that even mean. If there is no method of doing that then what knowledge of reality can be gained from untrue axioms?

How can you tell if your concept says anything about reality?

Your axiom 1 has to answer what 'changeless' means. Is it persisting through time without varying?
You should also try to define what a reality that doesn't exist might mean.

Your axiom doesn't seem to amount to much.

You have major problem in arguing that logic doesn't apply to reality, then trying to apply it!

Suppose that the laws of logic we know apply only in our local part of infinity. We would make sound logical arguments without any possibility of realising that in some other parts of infinity entirely different rules apply. We only assume that local rules are universal rules because we observe the same principles at work wherever we look, but that is empirical induction.

I suggest there is no logical argument possible that could establish that A = A throughout all existence (multiple universes, astral planes, layers of mind, nested simulations or whatever). You cannot show this since A=A is only an axiom apprehended from experience.