'When Are Relations Neither True Nor False?
in [Math]
|
From: Alan Smaill on 26 Mar 2010 16:46 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > Nam Nguyen wrote: >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>> >>>>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> The ultimate logic is one which is relativistic. >>>>>> Is that an absolute truth, then? >>>>>> >>>>>> I know, it's an old ploy, but your position just begs the question. >>>>>> >>>>> No. It's relative to what we, mortal beings, are entitled to know >>>>> and to >>>>> what existence realm we happen to be in. >>>> >>>> But that's just your subjective opinion of the situation, isn't it? >>> >>> That's why nothing is an absolute truth, absolutely true independent of >>> any opinion, observation, perception, endowed ability, etc.. >> >> Of course abstraction (mathematical or otherwise) is a form of subjective >> opinion. >> >> Seriously, if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth >> in mathematical reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. > > If you can't (general "you") then I'm sorry: my duty to the Zen council, > so to speak, is to see to it that "absolute" truths such as G(PA) is a > thing of the past, if not of oblivion. one day you will realise that your duty to the Zen council is to overcome your feeling of duty to what is purely subjective ... -- Alan Smaill
From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 17:13 Alan Smaill wrote: > Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > >> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The ultimate logic is one which is relativistic. >>>>>>> Is that an absolute truth, then? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I know, it's an old ploy, but your position just begs the question. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No. It's relative to what we, mortal beings, are entitled to know >>>>>> and to >>>>>> what existence realm we happen to be in. >>>>> But that's just your subjective opinion of the situation, isn't it? >>>> That's why nothing is an absolute truth, absolutely true independent of >>>> any opinion, observation, perception, endowed ability, etc.. >>> Of course abstraction (mathematical or otherwise) is a form of subjective >>> opinion. >>> >>> Seriously, if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth >>> in mathematical reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. >> If you can't (general "you") then I'm sorry: my duty to the Zen council, >> so to speak, is to see to it that "absolute" truths such as G(PA) is a >> thing of the past, if not of oblivion. > > one day you will realise that your duty to the Zen council > is to overcome your feeling of duty to what is purely subjective ... I'm sure your belief in the "absolute" truth of G(PA) is subjective, which you'd need to overcome - someday. Each of us (including Godel) coming to mathematics and reasoning has our own subjective "baggage". Is it FOL, or FOL=, that you've alluded to? For example.
From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 17:16 MoeBlee wrote: > On Mar 26, 3:11 pm, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...(a)shaw.ca> wrote: >> if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth in mathematical >> reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. > > Oh, sweet seduction, please don't tempt me so! Go ahead and demonstrate one, or prove any of my 4 principles is wrong. If you can.
From: Alan Smaill on 26 Mar 2010 17:46 Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: > Alan Smaill wrote: >> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >> >>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>>>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The ultimate logic is one which is relativistic. >>>>>>>> Is that an absolute truth, then? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know, it's an old ploy, but your position just begs the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. It's relative to what we, mortal beings, are entitled to know >>>>>>> and to >>>>>>> what existence realm we happen to be in. >>>>>> But that's just your subjective opinion of the situation, isn't it? >>>>> That's why nothing is an absolute truth, absolutely true independent of >>>>> any opinion, observation, perception, endowed ability, etc.. >>>> Of course abstraction (mathematical or otherwise) is a form of subjective >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> Seriously, if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth >>>> in mathematical reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. >>> If you can't (general "you") then I'm sorry: my duty to the Zen council, >>> so to speak, is to see to it that "absolute" truths such as G(PA) is a >>> thing of the past, if not of oblivion. >> >> one day you will realise that your duty to the Zen council >> is to overcome your feeling of duty to what is purely subjective ... > > I'm sure your belief in the "absolute" truth of G(PA) is subjective, which > you'd need to overcome - someday. Each of us (including Godel) coming to > mathematics and reasoning has our own subjective "baggage". Why on earth do you think I have some belief in the " "absolute" truth " of G(PA) ? I don't even know what that *means* . > Is it FOL, or FOL=, that you've alluded to? For example. I've not alluded to any formal system in this discussion. -- Alan Smaill
From: Nam Nguyen on 26 Mar 2010 17:55
Nam Nguyen wrote: > Alan Smaill wrote: >> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >> >>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>> Nam Nguyen wrote: >>>>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alan Smaill wrote: >>>>>>>> Nam Nguyen <namducnguyen(a)shaw.ca> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The ultimate logic is one which is relativistic. >>>>>>>> Is that an absolute truth, then? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know, it's an old ploy, but your position just begs the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. It's relative to what we, mortal beings, are entitled to know >>>>>>> and to >>>>>>> what existence realm we happen to be in. >>>>>> But that's just your subjective opinion of the situation, isn't it? >>>>> That's why nothing is an absolute truth, absolutely true >>>>> independent of >>>>> any opinion, observation, perception, endowed ability, etc.. >>>> Of course abstraction (mathematical or otherwise) is a form of >>>> subjective >>>> opinion. >>>> >>>> Seriously, if you could demonstrate a truly absolute abstract truth >>>> in mathematical reasoning, I'd leave the forum never coming back. >>> If you can't (general "you") then I'm sorry: my duty to the Zen council, >>> so to speak, is to see to it that "absolute" truths such as G(PA) is a >>> thing of the past, if not of oblivion. >> >> one day you will realise that your duty to the Zen council >> is to overcome your feeling of duty to what is purely subjective ... > > I'm sure your belief in the "absolute" truth of G(PA) is subjective, which > you'd need to overcome - someday. Each of us (including Godel) coming to > mathematics and reasoning has our own subjective "baggage". > > Is it FOL, or FOL=, that you've alluded to? For example. Note how much this physical reality has influenced and shaped our mathematics and mathematical reasonings. Euclidean postulates had their root in our once perception of space. From P(a) we infer Ex[P(x)] wouldn't be an inference if the our physical reality didn't support such at least in some way. And uncertainty in physics is a form relativity. The point is relativity runs deep in reality and you're not fighting with a lone person: you're fighting against your own limitation! Any rate, enough talk. Do you have even a single absolute truth you could show me so that I'd realize I've been wrong all along? Let's begin with the natural numbers: which formula in the language of arithmetic could _you_ demonstrate as absolutely true? |