Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
in [Logic]
|
From: Keth on 23 Dec 2009 10:46 On Dec 23, 4:34 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 6:46 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 23, 9:00 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Four legs are not the cause of the stableness of table, the real > > > > cause is the physical force corresponding to the structure of the > > > > table. When one pushes the table, a force is generated towards the > > > > other direction, which generates a counter-force by the legs on the > > > > other side. All these forces take time to reach equilibrium. > > > > > Use flexible material for the legs and we can actually observe the > > > > time it takes to reach the equilibrium. With legs of rigid material, > > > > the forces reach equilibrium almost instantly. > > > > > The underlying causation is force. And the action of force takes > > > > time. Force A -> effect B is a time delayed causation. I thought this > > > > is common knowledge. > > > > I'm not sure the definition of force as the rate of change of momentum > > > with respect to time is common knowledge. > > > At least it should be a common knowledge (or required knowledge) to > > those who wants to discuss causation. I tend to think that we often > > ignore these causations in our discussion of knowledge system. Some of > > these things are not known to Aristotle or Kant, so they did not > > include them in their writings. But people in modern society should. > > Expecting everybody to have the same knowledge is unrealistic. We seem > to ignore lots of relationships but I agree knowledge is generally > applied in order to make predictions. However time is intrensic to > force, there are underlying causations of force, and the time factor > is effectively negated in static mechanics. > > > > > > > > > One exception to the rule is logical causation and mathematical > > > > > > causation, > > > > > There is no such thing, you have invented these terms. > > > > > > > which does not involve time. Logical and mathematical > > > > > > causation are formative translations. For example, 2+2=4 and AUB=BUA > > > > > > do not involve time. Strictly speaking these are not causation since > > > > > > there is no time delay. > > > > > > This is a confusion of thought. They are piling up. > > > > > Logical and mathematical transformations are often used in deduction > > > > method as if they are causation during the calculation process. Where > > > > is the confusion? > > > > I'm curious as to what transformations you are refering to. Do you > > > mean conditionals? > > > I am referring to the logical and mathematical equations. For example > > 2+2=4 or AUB=BUA. These equations transform one form to another. > > Though they start out as pure concepts, they have empirical > > implications. For example 2+2 = 4 can be simulated with assembling two > > groups of 2 people together, and we get 4 people. By doing so, we > > verify that the condition "two adds two" will generate the result > > "four" in a time domain. > > > When not simulating these equations (in a time domain causal form), > > the logical and mathematics transformations stand true on themselves > > in timeless domain. This is why they are a priori knowledge. > > You seem to be refering to commutativity. All mathematical equations > are not transformations, addition is an operation rather than a > condition, and I fail to see how something in a "timeless domain" will > generate a result in a "time domain". The entity "2 and 2" and "4" are two different "forms". The former has two pairs, the later has only one group consisting of members. Is this not so? We can transform the former form to the latter through the operator "add". Adding two pairs together create a condition that can be transformed to one group of four. I already explain that transformation like this can be emulated with operation "add" in a time domain.
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 23 Dec 2009 11:46 > The rallying Queen Baboon Patricia Aldoraz Basketweaved thus: > > See how a few insults brings cockroaches like you out? > Plus, your remark is not even close to sensible. > If you are not quoting someone, you are completely lost, aren't you? Spot the irony..
From: M Purcell on 23 Dec 2009 11:49 On Dec 23, 7:46 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 4:34 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 23, 6:46 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 9:00 am, M Purcell <sacsca...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 23, 12:45 am, Keth <kethiswo...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Four legs are not the cause of the stableness of table, the real > > > > > cause is the physical force corresponding to the structure of the > > > > > table. When one pushes the table, a force is generated towards the > > > > > other direction, which generates a counter-force by the legs on the > > > > > other side. All these forces take time to reach equilibrium. > > > > > > Use flexible material for the legs and we can actually observe the > > > > > time it takes to reach the equilibrium. With legs of rigid material, > > > > > the forces reach equilibrium almost instantly. > > > > > > The underlying causation is force. And the action of force takes > > > > > time. Force A -> effect B is a time delayed causation. I thought this > > > > > is common knowledge. > > > > > I'm not sure the definition of force as the rate of change of momentum > > > > with respect to time is common knowledge. > > > > At least it should be a common knowledge (or required knowledge) to > > > those who wants to discuss causation. I tend to think that we often > > > ignore these causations in our discussion of knowledge system. Some of > > > these things are not known to Aristotle or Kant, so they did not > > > include them in their writings. But people in modern society should. > > > Expecting everybody to have the same knowledge is unrealistic. We seem > > to ignore lots of relationships but I agree knowledge is generally > > applied in order to make predictions. However time is intrensic to > > force, there are underlying causations of force, and the time factor > > is effectively negated in static mechanics. > > > > > > > > One exception to the rule is logical causation and mathematical > > > > > > > causation, > > > > > > There is no such thing, you have invented these terms. > > > > > > > > which does not involve time. Logical and mathematical > > > > > > > causation are formative translations. For example, 2+2=4 and AUB=BUA > > > > > > > do not involve time. Strictly speaking these are not causation since > > > > > > > there is no time delay. > > > > > > > This is a confusion of thought. They are piling up. > > > > > > Logical and mathematical transformations are often used in deduction > > > > > method as if they are causation during the calculation process. Where > > > > > is the confusion? > > > > > I'm curious as to what transformations you are refering to. Do you > > > > mean conditionals? > > > > I am referring to the logical and mathematical equations. For example > > > 2+2=4 or AUB=BUA. These equations transform one form to another. > > > Though they start out as pure concepts, they have empirical > > > implications. For example 2+2 = 4 can be simulated with assembling two > > > groups of 2 people together, and we get 4 people. By doing so, we > > > verify that the condition "two adds two" will generate the result > > > "four" in a time domain. > > > > When not simulating these equations (in a time domain causal form), > > > the logical and mathematics transformations stand true on themselves > > > in timeless domain. This is why they are a priori knowledge. > > > You seem to be refering to commutativity. All mathematical equations > > are not transformations, addition is an operation rather than a > > condition, and I fail to see how something in a "timeless domain" will > > generate a result in a "time domain". > > The entity "2 and 2" and "4" are two different "forms". The former has > two pairs, the later has only one group consisting of members. Is this > not so? Yes it is not. Two and four are generally called numbers and do not necessarily represent members of a group. > We can transform the former form to the latter through the operator > "add". Adding two pairs together create a condition that can be > transformed to one group of four. What condition? Equivalence? > I already explain that transformation like this can be emulated with > operation "add" in a time domain. Emulated? How is it different?
From: Monsieur Turtoni on 23 Dec 2009 11:57 > Queen Baboon Patricia Aldoraz grunted: > You are just a grunting ape, calling out other apes > like Turtoni and Stafford with your grunts. What's your excuse?
From: Androcles on 22 Dec 2009 17:08
"jbriggs444" <jbriggs444(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2858d8c4-9ba3-4566-870f-a65190d0050e(a)e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com... 1. True by definition. (a square has four sides). ------------------------------------------------------------ Not one of yours, that has 6. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/Energy3.gif |