Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1Agnostic1
For someone who claims to be logical, your reasoning is highly illogical. Aristotelian Logic is entirely grammar based. All of the objections you make
to mathematical reasoning apply to Aristotlian Logic as well. Quantum Theory is based upon empiricism, not mysticism.
So, when you run out of arguments, because faced with a compelling analysis, you just state that my propositions are 'highly illogical' (without
providing any counterargument) and you think it‘s good enough?
For anyone who reads my last 2 posts and is enough open-minded (has no agenda) to at least consider the points made, I’m sure that they make a lot
of sense actually.
As for your last reply:
(Aristotelian) Logic is NOT grammar based. Logic is at a higher cognitive level than grammar
Logic (or dialectic) is the "mechanics" of thought and analysis; grammar is the mechanics of a language; rhetoric is the use of language to
instruct and persuade.
This is the trivium
I don't want to get into too much details, but Logic determines if a speech (language) is sound, grammar 'simply' allows us to agree on common
rules establishing the FORM language should/must take to be intelligibly expressed and received/perceived by an interlocutor.
In other words, Logic is about the soundness
(the ’truth’/rationality) of ideas/thoughts/hypotheses).
Grammar is about the validity
of the expression
of ideas/thoughts/hypotheses. It 'simply' intervenes (at a lower cognitive level,
then) to determine the compliance of speech to rules on the FORM speech should take; rules that we arbitrarily agree upon and, therefore, have no
intrinsic cognitive value.
Logic is a subset of logic since, and there your answer would be correct, it is about the form that an argument/demonstration
should/must adopt in order to be adequately presented.
We, indeed, must follow a set of rules (a grammar) to be able to express ideas/thoughts in a understandable manner by someone else (any interlocutor
sharing the same language or knowing it).
But they don’t determine the soundness of the idea expressed.
Thus, Mathematics, which are nothing more than a language, have their 'grammar' (their set of rules) BUT compliance to these internal arbitrary
rules only goes so far as to determine their own validity.
The problem is that we have mathematicians that push the idea that Mathematics are not created by man but discovered by him. - They’re like
God/Nature’s language. -
Again, for them, the simple fact that an equation is valid makes it, de facto, sound/true.
Therefore we see mathematicians developing maths with no consideration with Reality whatsoever. They truly believe scientific concepts and theories
(our understanding and interpretation of Reality/phenomena) should conform to their equations… This is preposterous and ridiculous. The exact
OPPOSITE is true.
In NO WAY valid mathematical equations are, de facto, SOUND (no, they are not God‘s language)! They don’t teach anything about reality.
Mathematics should be a language used by scientists
to express (in a quantitative way) their interpretation
/hypotheses of phenomena, no
more, no less.
Any hypothesis should come in a LOGICAL/sound metaphysical/philosophic content and form and expressed by words BEFORE to be translated into
mathematics and equations.
Like an idea, a thought is formed (in your brain/mind) before its expression via speech/language. (Except for people speaking out of their a$$es of
This is so basic that I’m baffled by the fact it can be argued against and not applied, today, by scientists.