(04-23-2013, 08:00 PM)Dogfood Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2013, 07:59 PM)failedALIAS Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2013, 06:32 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: [ -> ]It is an eternal state of personal disability and incompetence.
So not much will change for me. Anyone? 
you will lose your sexiness
Alias will never lose his sexiness.
(04-23-2013, 11:39 PM)Chronofluff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2013, 03:05 PM)BAndrew Wrote: [ -> ]For example electrons (just as photons) behave sometimes as waves and sometimes as particles without a reason. We have no "logical" explanation for the above fact.
Except I'm pretty sure that we do.
Do we? I haven't heard anything about that. If you know more please tell me.
Why is dis even being discussed? Its like discussing about the flavor of chicken soup when non have ever eaten a chicken.
As far as I now. Everyone as an answer but non can be certain for it to be true. Death is the only great mystery that every person who ever was, shall find the answer for.
(04-24-2013, 11:58 AM)BAndrew Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2013, 11:39 PM)Chronofluff Wrote: [ -> ] (04-23-2013, 03:05 PM)BAndrew Wrote: [ -> ]For example electrons (just as photons) behave sometimes as waves and sometimes as particles without a reason. We have no "logical" explanation for the above fact.
Except I'm pretty sure that we do.
Do we? I haven't heard anything about that. If you know more please tell me.
IF electrons behaves as waves
AND
IF electrons behaves as particles
THEN electrons behave as particles and waves
There's some proper logic for you. Not the kind of 'ohhhh how logical!' informal logic that has been thrown around left right and center in this thread, but real straight up logical deduction.
Logic doesn't give a damn about fact or evidence or whats true or right or whatever. That's all about evidence, reasoning, rational thinking etc.
LOGIC is a purely mathematical structure (or is math a logical structure...?) in which you enter premises and draw a conclusion. Nothing more. If you use assumptions and bullshit as the premise for a logical conclusion, that conclusion can still be logical.
Here's a great example I got from a discussion by several logicians (is that a word?) on a radio program we have in the UK called In Our Time,
IF Betty is a cow
AND
IF All cows are Ungulots
THEN Betty is an Ungulot
See, it doesn't matter that Ungulot is a term that just got made up on the spot, it doesn't even matter whether or not Betty is actually in truth, a Cow, or a Horse. It's just a structure where we make assumptions and a conclusion is drawn directly from the premise
This is the premise....
IF Betty is a cow
AND
IF All cows are Ungulots
and this is the conclusion...
THEN Betty is an Ungulot
You will notice that the conclusion is basically a re-arrangement of the premise. That's logic
^"Ungulate" is an actual term, though.
(04-24-2013, 05:42 PM)MyRedNeptune Wrote: [ -> ]^"Ungulate" is an actual term, though.
Yeh, but ungulot isn't (outside of Kenya, at least (thanks, google))
.... I did say it wasn't my own example right? Please see the top of my post for my own version of it
(EDIT: Although now that you bring that up, it does make me wonder if perhaps I misheard that part of the program... oh well, the point still stands!)
I am sure most of us here are familiar with Boolean logic. What exactly is your point? It is completely useless to us in this discussion, and despite its name informal logic is a well documented field. Do you really want to be a pedant and challenge the use of the world "logical", as it has been established in the English language for centuries, because our discussion is not concerned with mathematics? Speaking of, the logical statement: [IF there is no physical evidence to support the idea of an afterlife THEN an afterlife exists] is mathematically illogical. Is that knowledge helpful to us in any way? It is not, because we can infer that quite easily without validating it.
(04-24-2013, 06:25 PM)Bridge Wrote: [ -> ]I am sure most of us here are familiar with Boolean logic. What exactly is your point? It is completely useless to us in this discussion, and despite its name informal logic is a well documented field. Do you really want to be a pedant and challenge the use of the world "logical", as it has been established in the English language for centuries, because our discussion is not concerned with mathematics? Speaking of, the logical statement: [IF there is no physical evidence to support the idea of an afterlife THEN an afterlife exists] is mathematically illogical. Is that knowledge helpful to us in any way? It is not, because we can infer that quite easily without validating it.
The reason I felt it would be useful is that throughout this discussion people have been saying this is logical, that is illogical etc etc A. without establishing the premise for their conclusion and B. are using it as a general term for what makes sense or is based on evidence etc.
Quote:Do you really want to be a pedant and challenge the use of the world "logical", as it has been established in the English language for centuries, because our discussion is not concerned with mathematics?
Apologies for the misunderstanding, that was not at all my intention. That's just what it is, I didn't mean that it can only be used when concerning mathematics.
Quote:[IF there is no physical evidence to support the idea of an afterlife THEN an afterlife exists] is mathematically illogical
Yeh you're right, that is illogical, because the conclusion was not drawn directly from the premise.
Earlier in this discussion you said this,
Quote:The point is: there is no evidence that suggest an afterlife exists, and there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that the idea was created because people are afraid to die. It is illogical to believe in it.
That's one of several examples in this discussion where logic was used where it shouldn't be. Here's why,
IF death is not merely a state of nothingness
AND
IF we go to a place after we die
AND
IF christian ideas are true
THEN after we die we go to heaven
That is a logical conclusion. It doesn't matter whether any of the premises are true, or based on fact or material evidence, it is logical by nature of the process. I don't believe it is true, but I do believe that it is a logical conclusion. That is Formal logic, not Boolean logic - Boolean Logic defines true/false statements and is more directly related to mathematics
TBH, the concept of an afterlife only exists because of our imagination. That's because the rules of a so-called "life after death" do not fit in with how we understand the universe. I mean, how else do you explain all of the theories being...well... interesting, to say the least?(Also how each one follows the narrative of a story or moral lesson? Concepts invented by man?) I don't need to entertain the idea simply because I don't know for 100% that there isn't one. But based on my understanding of the universe, I really, really, doubt it.
Quote: Speaking of, the logical statement: [IF there is no physical evidence to
support the idea of an afterlife THEN an afterlife exists] is
mathematically illogical.
To strengthen this point, I'd like to make the hypothetical claim that there is a giant teapot on the other side of the sun that we can never see because it is hiding from us. Now I challenge you to disprove that, or you lose the argument.
See how LOGIC that is? You can't really justify the belief in an afterlife without making intellectual compromise. Sure, you have a personal right to do so, but I'll be damned if you can make a convincing argument around one. Unfortunately, that doesn't stop people from trying.
...which is why these threads always die. One side is a torrential storm and the other is a steel bunker and neither side gets any leeway.
(04-24-2013, 06:43 PM)Adrianis Wrote: [ -> ]That is a logical conclusion. It doesn't matter whether any of the premises are true, or based on fact or material evidence, it is logical by nature of the process. I don't believe it is true, but I do believe that it is a logical conclusion. That is Formal logic, not Boolean logic - Boolean Logic defines true/false statements and is more directly related to mathematics
But what do we gain by examining whether it is logical based on the premises? I know where that can be useful - when you know the premises and the conclusion, such as in programming. It is not useful when trying to prove that something is
rational.
BTW, don't the two overlap somewhat? I'm not an expert, but the if p and r and z then q examples which you have been giving are Boolean statements right? If this is true, and this is false, and this is true, then this is true.
And I apologize for my poor example, which was made in some haste. I could reword it so it is more solid logically, but the point is abundantly clear.