On treeness of Oak1, and other things

[GrahamH]

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

My axiom concerns absolute reality, not truth.
What do we mean by absolute truth?

I agree with axiom 2, all that exists must change, therefore by (my) axiom 1 all that exists is not reality

I meant to phrase it as your axiom, so:

Alternative axiom 1. Absolute reality is that everything, including absolute reality, changes

[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.

[Little Idiot]

I see that you are being obscurantist in your word-play. By claiming that reality is no thing you avoid having to say anything meaningful about it. This is odd for a man who wants to talk metaphysics.

Thats both untrue and unfair.
I am not being obscurantist. I am being as precise and accurate, as error free as I can.
I am NOT avoiding saying things about reality; I am avoiding saying misleading things about it, and avoiding allowing errors about reality.
My purpose here is the eact opposite of obscurantism.

Actually I think what you say here vindicates your opponents on the issue of metaphysics. Given your definition of what reality is not, nothing can be said about it. If you wish to avoid saying misleading things about it then say nothing. Metaphysics is an error.

This is the traditional position on 'non-duality.'
This is 'that which can not be spoken of.'
This is why Jesus answered Poilots question 'what is reality' with the only answer Pilot could have understood; silence. It was not that Jesus did not know, only that language can not express.

However, not all of us are traditionalists.
It is possible to speak of non-duality in two ways.
First, by saying what it is not; the classic 'neti neti' meaning "not this not this"
Second in limited and very precise positive descriptions.
This shows how we can speak of absolute reality in non-ambiguous error-free ways.

The effort to do so is justifiable, metaphysics is justifiable.
Axiom 1 is a grounding, metaphysics is grounded.

[GrahamH]

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.

[GrahamH]

This is the traditional position on 'non-duality.'
This is 'that which can not be spoken of.'
This is why Jesus answered Poilots question 'what is reality' with the only answer Pilot could have understood; silence. It was not that Jesus did not know, only that language can not express.

It seems to have been a rhetorical question.
But, supposing truth cannot be expressed in language, what are you attempting to do here, with all these symbols?

Again you validate 'Metaphysics is an error'.

[Little Idiot]

Let this thread go to Tarski and the new way of knowing .

LI. Let's take the BM vs neuroscience discussion over here:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 41#p398041
It's getting fucking confusing.

I will drop in on your new thread, and put you right on your assumptions

I was hoping we could avoid getting too embroiled in Tarski; there is a lot of it and its not easy reading.
But do we need to do so? XC has agreed that there are other ways of knowing which do not rely on empirical observation.
Peano's forst 4 aioms are 'pure logic' and do not depend on observation.

Even if you argue that some axioms are in agreement with observation, and even if you argue that they are only true because they match observation, then it still remains the case that we can aquire new knowledge without additional observation and therefore the new knowledge has been gained by logical proof, not by observation.

To be honest, the only reason I was so determined to show that we can know without empirical evidence was to present an aiom without such observation and not be dismissed on this grounds.
Since Peano's axioms are exactly this, the point has become moot anyway in the context of my axioms. Other than the egoism value; was I right or wrong. I think I was right.

[SpeedOfSound]

Not an expert on Tarski either but my read of it has him proving logically that no system can be created without reference to a superset of that system. Nor can any system prove anything outside of itself.

SO. What we have here is the claim that if we make shit up it is a new way of knowing. Somehow I'm not surprised that we would have a couple of posters around here buying into that.

What I have done is not make a new way of knowing.
I have simply established that we have already at least one other way of knowing beyond the empirical.
Peano's first 4 axioms are 'self evident' (all axioms are) and 'pure logic' without reference to the empirircal. I have demonstrated that knowledge can be gained without reference to the empirical.
But this is not 'a new way of knowing'.

The introduction of the word 'new' is a straw man I for one am not talking about here.

No. Axioms are not pure logic. Logic and reasoning is what you do with them.

An axiom is a self evident or universally recognized staement or truth.
An established rule or law.
A generally accepted principle established by EXPERIENCE!

It is the foundation of a formal deductive system.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/axiom

Assumption (to contrast)

(Philosophy / Logic) Logic a statement that is used as the premise of a particular argument but may not be otherwise accepted.

Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption

For you and jamest with your disbelief of physical reality I would say that axioms aren't possible. The only place I can get them is with R1 experience. I have no idea where you might get them unless the BM handed you some tablets in the forest.

[SpeedOfSound]

Let this thread go to Tarski and the new way of knowing .

LI. Let's take the BM vs neuroscience discussion over here:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 41#p398041
It's getting fucking confusing.

I will drop in on your new thread, and put you right on your assumptions

I was hoping we could avoid getting too embroiled in Tarski; there is a lot of it and its not easy reading.
But do we need to do so? XC has agreed that there are other ways of knowing which do not rely on empirical observation.
Peano's forst 4 aioms are 'pure logic' and do not depend on observation.

Even if you argue that some axioms are in agreement with observation, and even if you argue that they are only true because they match observation, then it still remains the case that we can aquire new knowledge without additional observation and therefore the new knowledge has been gained by logical proof, not by observation.

To be honest, the only reason I was so determined to show that we can know without empirical evidence was to present an aiom without such observation and not be dismissed on this grounds.
Since Peano's axioms are exactly this, the point has become moot anyway in the context of my axioms. Other than the egoism value; was I right or wrong. I think I was right.

If you persist then we need to understand Tarski. I doubt I have the time but if you persist...

What I have told you is what I have gleaned so far. Systems must be grounded in commonly accepted ideas from greater systems. Axioms, I suspect. Where we gonna get those things? R1.

If you are calling the deductions new knowledge then fine. My definition of R2 includes empirical evidence and reason and logic based upon it. I even include models as hypothesis. It's all new knowledge.

It's still all GROUNDED in accepted reality. Calling it a NEW way of knowing not based on empirical evidence is a stretch.

[SpeedOfSound]

Let this thread go to Tarski and the new way of knowing .

LI. Let's take the BM vs neuroscience discussion over here:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 41#p398041
It's getting fucking confusing.

I will drop in on your new thread, and put you right on your assumptions

Feel free. I have to be more careful about throwing my ideas in with my knowledge of the brain. If I make claims about C and have not yet given a definition of it then I have gone too far. Hopefully I can fix those things in that thread.

There is a technical definition of C and then there is my personal understanding of it. For me the two have become one. But that's personal not science.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

XC has agreed that there are other ways of knowing which do not rely on empirical observation.

No I have not!

I said:

Assuming that we accept mathematical theorems proved using sound logic based upon logical axioms as being different from empirical observation and not merely an extension of it (which I do not entirely concede but am happy to declare a moot point), then that, single, alternative way of knowing exists.

This cannot be extended to imply that there are any other ways of knowing without further justification. And each way of knowing requires its own evidence.

You have misrepresented a qualified, partial concession of one very specific case (which does rely fundamentally upon empirical observation) into a general, unqualified agreement that there are ways (note the plural) of knowing that do not rely upon said observation. I find this to be deliberately dishonest and am personally offended.

Furthermore:
1. It is my personal view that mathematics are extensions of empirical observation and NOT an alternative per se.
2. I have never agreed with you that any of the Peano axioms, or Euclid's for that matter, come from anywhere other than empirical observation.
3. Following from 2, your own 'axiom' claims that the Peano axioms (and logic in general) do not apply in 'absolute reality', hence, by your own reasoning. we CAN only know of them through empirical experience.


DO NOT misrepresent me in this way again.
DO NOT cite me as an authority without quoting the text of my statement in full and in context.
DO NOT claim that I agree either fully, or in part, with your nonsensical 'axiom'.
And finally, BE AWARE that I reserve the right, should I find you attempting to place words in my mouth again, to bite off your fucking fingers.

[Little Idiot]

XC has agreed that there are other ways of knowing which do not rely on empirical observation.

No I have not!

I said:

Assuming that we accept mathematical theorems proved using sound logic based upon logical axioms as being different from empirical observation and not merely an extension of it (which I do not entirely concede but am happy to declare a moot point), then that, single, alternative way of knowing exists.

This cannot be extended to imply that there are any other ways of knowing without further justification. And each way of knowing requires its own evidence.

You have misrepresented a qualified, partial concession of one very specific case (which does rely fundamentally upon empirical observation) into a general, unqualified agreement that there are ways (note the plural) of knowing that do not rely upon said observation. I find this to be deliberately dishonest and am personally offended.

Please accept my apology for offending you.
It was a silly and sloppy mistake on my part to put in a plural.

Furthermore:
1. It is my personal view that mathematics are extensions of empirical observation and NOT an alternative per se.
2. I have never agreed with you that any of the Peano axioms, or Euclid's for that matter, come from anywhere other than empirical observation.
3. Following from 2, your own 'axiom' claims that the Peano axioms (and logic in general) do not apply in 'absolute reality', hence, by your own reasoning. we CAN only know of them through empirical experience.

We can agree to disagree about Peano's early axioms being pure logic, but I got that from the wiki page you linked to.

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

DO NOT misrepresent me in this way again.
DO NOT cite me as an authority without quoting the text of my statement in full and in context.
DO NOT claim that I agree either fully, or in part, with your nonsensical 'axiom'.
And finally, BE AWARE that I reserve the right, should I find you attempting to place words in my mouth again, to bite off your fucking fingers.

O.K.
(But I dont guarantee the cleanliness of my fingers at any particular time. Idealists are well known as having low calorific values and are generally considered unfit for human consumption. Feeding to lions was a favourite disposal method, apparently.)

[SpeedOfSound]

O.K.
(But I dont guarantee the cleanliness of my fingers at any particular time. Idealists are well known as having low calorific values and are generally considered unfit for human consumption. Feeding to lions was a favourite disposal method, apparently.)

Nutrition aside, they make great chew toys.

[Little Idiot]

Let this thread go to Tarski and the new way of knowing .

LI. Let's take the BM vs neuroscience discussion over here:
http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 41#p398041
It's getting fucking confusing.

I will drop in on your new thread, and put you right on your assumptions

I was hoping we could avoid getting too embroiled in Tarski; there is a lot of it and its not easy reading.
But do we need to do so? XC has agreed that there are other ways of knowing which do not rely on empirical observation.
Peano's forst 4 aioms are 'pure logic' and do not depend on observation.

Even if you argue that some axioms are in agreement with observation, and even if you argue that they are only true because they match observation, then it still remains the case that we can aquire new knowledge without additional observation and therefore the new knowledge has been gained by logical proof, not by observation.

To be honest, the only reason I was so determined to show that we can know without empirical evidence was to present an aiom without such observation and not be dismissed on this grounds.
Since Peano's axioms are exactly this, the point has become moot anyway in the context of my axioms. Other than the egoism value; was I right or wrong. I think I was right.

If you persist then we need to understand Tarski. I doubt I have the time but if you persist...

If I persist in what exactly?
I dont claim any new way of getting knowledge, I claim that we have established at least one additional way is valid, but I specifically claim it is not a new way.

I say the knowledge is new, because if that which is not known is made known, then its new knowledge.
Another example of 'new knowledge'; If what is known only implicitly (say as a pile of unproceessed data) then processing and concluding from the data and confirmation of a hypothesis has produced new knowledge that the hypothesis is known to be accurate model rather than thought to be an accurate model.

What I have told you is what I have gleaned so far. Systems must be grounded in commonly accepted ideas from greater systems. Axioms, I suspect. Where we gonna get those things? R1.

If you are calling the deductions new knowledge then fine. My definition of R2 includes empirical evidence and reason and logic based upon it. I even include models as hypothesis. It's all new knowledge.

It's still all GROUNDED in accepted reality. Calling it a NEW way of knowing not based on empirical evidence is a stretch.

I dont say we have a new way of knowing.
I do say we have at least one way of knowing which is not based on empirical observation.
I do say Axioms may be true without empirical observations.

Are we OK with that?

[Little Idiot]

O.K.
(But I dont guarantee the cleanliness of my fingers at any particular time. Idealists are well known as having low calorific values and are generally considered unfit for human consumption. Feeding to lions was a favourite disposal method, apparently.)

Nutrition aside, they make great chew toys.

Just remember to spit not swallow

[Little Idiot]

Not an expert on Tarski either but my read of it has him proving logically that no system can be created without reference to a superset of that system. Nor can any system prove anything outside of itself.

SO. What we have here is the claim that if we make shit up it is a new way of knowing. Somehow I'm not surprised that we would have a couple of posters around here buying into that.

What I have done is not make a new way of knowing.
I have simply established that we have already at least one other way of knowing beyond the empirical.
Peano's first 4 axioms are 'self evident' (all axioms are) and 'pure logic' without reference to the empirircal. I have demonstrated that knowledge can be gained without reference to the empirical.
But this is not 'a new way of knowing'.

The introduction of the word 'new' is a straw man I for one am not talking about here.

No. Axioms are not pure logic. Logic and reasoning is what you do with them.

An axiom is a self evident or universally recognized staement or truth.
An established rule or law.
A generally accepted principle established by EXPERIENCE!

It is the foundation of a formal deductive system.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/axiom

Assumption (to contrast)

(Philosophy / Logic) Logic a statement that is used as the premise of a particular argument but may not be otherwise accepted.

Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption

For you and jamest with your disbelief of physical reality I would say that axioms aren't possible. The only place I can get them is with R1 experience. I have no idea where you might get them unless the BM handed you some tablets in the forest.

You show me your (quote) and I'll show you mine.
wiki says
"The first four statements are general statements about equality; in modern treatments these are often considered axioms of pure logic."