I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal [Math]

Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question

From: troll on 14 Mar 2010 20:31

From: Huang on 15 Mar 2010 00:01

> I think it is a very interesting question to ask : Can logic be
> "observed" in the same sense that we observe time and length.
>
> Logic is not visible to our eyes, but can certainly be detected by
> means of experiment. All you need to do is perform some simple
> arithmetic experiments or demonstrations.
>
> There may be some question as to whether logic itself is quantifiable,
> but this may be possible due to some ideas such as entropy.

One additional comment on what was written above regarding
quantification of logic.

Currently in math and science it would be widely regarded that logic
is an "all or nothing affair". You either have it or you do not, very
much like existence. The semblance is more than a mere coincidence.

But the important thing to note is that logic is already quantified
this way under the normal usage of standard mathematics. It may be
regarded as having a value of 1 or 0, %100 or $0.Something is either
logical or it is not, corresponding to a 1, or a 0.

If you are modelling with Conjectural Modelling, then you can have
partial logic because you have partial existence, the words to explain
this are very different than philosophical considerations used to
explain standard math, but again the two modelling methodologies (math
and conjecture) are ultimately equivalent. You still have equivalence,
and in my opinion partial logic would be consistent with the rest of
conjectural modelling.

If you have partial logic, again you have an ability to quantitfy
logic as it can take any value from 0 to 1 (noninclusive).

So, whether one is using mathematics, or conjecture, I believe that it
is indeed possible, reasonable, and completely sensible to quantify
logic.

Therefore, we should be able to use observations of logical processes
as artifacts of valid science. You can apply the scientific method
properly here, and you will have a valid observation which would
consitute valid physics.

From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 15 Mar 2010 03:41

On Mar 13, 2:34 am, Frederick Williams <frederick.willia...(a)tesco.net>
wrote:
> Huang wrote:
> > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
> > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
>
> > Logic <=> Existence
>
> > So what do we mean by that.
>
> Your use of the word "we" is an attempt to implicate us all in your
> silliness.
>

Bo, he isn't. He is talking about himself. According to Mark Twain,
Huang has tapeworms.

From: Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr. on 15 Mar 2010 03:46

On Mar 13, 12:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then
> you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing
> existence by means of physical experiment".
>
> That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process
> of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion
> based on this observation is that he exists.
>
> I dont buy it.
>
> One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence
> based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do
> not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded
> as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type
> of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is
> certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence.
>
> As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have
> already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes :
>
> Logic <=> Existence
>
> So what do we mean by that. Well...we can devise many experiments
> which can be performed in nature which will obey the laws of logic.
> For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will
> notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an
> example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show
> very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe.
>
> And if this universe were a perfectly logical machine, something like
> a Newtonian clock, then we would reasonably expect that we have
> demonstrated existence BECAUSE nature is imitating mathematics, and
> math is based on existence.
>
> Nonexistence on the other hand seems to exhibit a kind of "anti-
> logic". So, until someone starts performing experiments that
> explicitly demonstrate a physical manifestation of nonsense.....we can
> safely assume that we all exist and the universe exists as well.
>
> It seems to me that this approach is MUCH more valid than Descartes'
> approach, and it really exhibits the usefulness of nonexistence and
> nonsense.
>
> There is much more to this story, because QM is inherently
> probabilistic and so that needs to be explained. There is a perfectly
> reasonable explanation of how that ties in, but I have no time at the
> moment.
>
> The important thing to READ in what I am saying is that Logic occurs
> when you have mathematical existence, and Nonsense occurs when you
> have nonexistence. If you can devise physical experiments which
> exhibit logical processes in such a way that logic becomes
> "observable" in some sense, then you have demonstrated existence.
>
> This approach makes MUCH more sense than what Descartes said, basing
> his silly conclusions about existence on his very weak observations of
> his own thought processes which occur in his mind. That is practically
> SILLY.
>
> JUST TO RECAP :
>
> Descartes makes an observation that "he thinks". From this he
> concludes that he exists.
>
> I dont see why that would neccesarily follow anyway - but thats what
> he said.
>
> It makes more sense to try to observe a "physical manifestation of
> logical processes in nature" and marry that to an understanding of
> math and then existence. I am completely stunned that he didnt take
> that approach, but that is how things happened.
>
> As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
> I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
> I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
> care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
>

Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air? This is like posting "100 ways to
cook beef" to soc.culture.hindu.

From: Huang on 15 Mar 2010 08:09

> > As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things
> > I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling,
> > I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I
> > care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
>
> Why is this stuff posted top sci.physics and sci.math instead of
> sci.philosophy and/or sci.hot.air? This is like posting "100 ways to
> cook beef" to soc.culture.hindu.- Hide quoted text -
>

The reason it goes to sci.math is because Conjectural Modelling is
equivalent to Mathematics. Any mathematical problem should be
solveable using tools other than mathematics, and that is why it
should be interesting to the math community.

It gets posted in sci.physics as well because Conjectural Modelling is
an appropriate tool for constructing physical models which satisfy the
scientific method.

My question for you is whether you actually understood anything that I
said, and why you would criticize something if you dont completely
understand it ?

More reasons why it goes to sci.math:

Conjectures (according to my usage) are based on existential
indeterminacy. They become mathematical statements under the
assumption of existence. Conjectural Modelling is "transformable" into
Mathematics. That is why this is of interest to mathematics.

Any probabilistic problem can be reworded in terms of existential
indeterminacy and conservation of existential potential. That is why
it is of interest to mathematics. This usage of conservation makes it
interesting to a physicist.

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question