Cheat Engine Forum Index Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


discussion with a denier of logic existing

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
waking up finnegan
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 0

Joined: 02 Jan 2023
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:52 pm    Post subject: discussion with a denier of logic existing Reply with quote

"M" — Yesterday at 9:18 PM:
    do you affirm the Classical Laws of Logic, the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Causal Principle ?
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"Atheistic" — Yesterday at 10:25 PM:
    I don't think the laws of logic, principle of sufficient reason, and causal principal are literally existing things but I use them frequently when having discussions.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:04 PM:
    you seem to be saying that these universal notions—for mentally abstracting as to what accepts existence (i.e. empirical, in the "external", objective reality) and for how knowledge is known that is acquired and for how thinking is limited to coherent supposing—relates to entities comparatively similarly to common nouns.
    for example, the noun "horse" relates to existing entities that share some common notion, a notion that is existing only in the mind. although there does exist among externally existing objects a measure of resemblance and similarity, and a measure of difference and contrariety, the perception of this resemblance and difference is a judgment of the mind after it has abstracted the qualities of each thing, then compared and contrasted them for the purpose of classification. what is existing in "external" reality is perceptible in some way, although some of that is only perceptible to us now (which can be known as the realm of aisthesis, and what is not now perceptible is known as the realm of the unseen). the basic rules of logic and the innate axioms of reason being axiomatic and a priori, therefore, neither derive from nor are dependent on empirical experience and, partly for this reason, are not confined to our realm of empirical reality.
    by their nature, logical principles hold true universally and without exception; we apply them analogically to both of the realms, as abstractions (that exist mentally) of existence in reality.
    i hope you understand, and that i have not mischaracterised what you seem to be saying.
    in which case, you'd be affirming them as they're affirmed innately and as we affirm them
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"Atheistic" — Yesterday at 11:17 PM:
    I reject the notion that the laws of logic, for example, are things which exist in the universe.

    Logic is just a set of rules, like you find in chess and checkers, that allow us to communicate certain ideas more cleanly and work through problems. We didn't discover them, we invented them.

    If I talk about my car, there is a physical reality that I'm talking about. If I say 2 + 2 = 4, I'm simply using the rules of math to express a tautology, there's no 2s and 4s out in the universe.
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:18 PM:
      > If I talk about my car, there is a physical reality that I'm talking about.

    yeah, this is what i said with the horse example. the thing you're talking about, isn't the notion that you're using for classification and reasoning.
    the car is not the word "car"
    the map is not the territory. doesn't mean the map, even if it's a purely mental one, doesn't exist in some way—even though it might not be existing empirically.
    it doesn't make sense that you're using "2+2=4" if those things you're using, don't exist mentally
    so, you are you. a thing is itself. that doesn't mean that if i cut you open enough, i'll find the "law of identity" branded somewhere
    you'd be correct to say it's not an empirical existent, i.e. in the universe
    you can still affirm these universals and their role, while acknowledging this. that's what i do
    the rationalisation of the foundations of rationality is something different than the foundations. their being rationalised, or "invented" as you put it, doesn't change their being foundational—it's just a giving of descriptive understanding to the prescriptive epistemology of reality. they are necessary truths about reality that exist independently of human thought or language. the process of rationalisation or articulation of these laws does not change their fundamental status as the foundation of rationality and knowledge. instead, it helps us to understand and articulate the ways in which these principles are necessary for us to make sense of the world, and communicate about it.
    a name typically given to this is nominalism btw
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"Atheistic" — Yesterday at 11:39 PM:
    I do not agree that the laws of logic are truths about reality.
    Logic is a human invention and it's part of our language. Logic is like English, Chinese, or Arabic. We made them for our own purposes (to communicate).
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:41 PM:
    you don't think it's true that a thing is itself ?
    that the car being described in speech, is the car being described in speech?
    you think... horses didn't exist until the word itself "horse" was invented ?
    logic itself is pre-historic, it's a necessary truth for supposing coherently.
    just because humans use it in language doesn't change its reality
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

''H'' — Yesterday at 11:42 PM:
    If logic was made for our own purposes then how do you explain mathemtical propositions holding true outside of our minds and being able to predict patterns in reality if they're purely conventional
    For instance the statement in eulers identity was assumed to be purely theoretical construct, but recently with the advancement of microchips we realized that microchips require these mathematics in order to function
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:44 PM:
    even animals know that a thing is itself
~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"Atheistic" — Yesterday at 11:46 PM:
    X = x isn't some discovered property of the universe, it's just a rule we came up with to avoid contradictions when communicating.

    And sure, if you want to get technical, "horse" is a category of similar arrangements of matter. Technically speaking, there are never going to be two horses such that they could be considered identical.

    But that's not what I'm referring to. We have analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Logic falls squarely in the realm of analytic language. It's true because we've created the rules such that it has to be true, it's not some underlying thing or property in the universe.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:46 PM:
    1: the coherence of a mental abstraction, determined by the Classical Laws of Logic, the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Causal Principle being present, determines whether it is possible to understand it or not.

    2: if the Classical Laws of Logic, the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Causal Principle were not innate to human beings, then every mental abstraction would be incoherent.

    Conclusion: therefore, the existence of coherent abstractions necessitate their being innate.

    how could we arrive at the Classical Laws of Logic, the Principle of Sufficient Reasoning and the Causal Principle, if we did not already possess them innately?

    these principles are the foundation for all rational mental abstractions and are necessary for us to make sense of the world around us. without them, it would be impossible for us to understand anything.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:46 PM:
    i'm really not sure i understand what you're saying at all
    "x = x isn't some discovered property of the universe" isn't "x = x isn't some discovered property of the universe"
    this becomes completely incoherent

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"Atheistic" — Yesterday at 11:51 PM:
    Making a contradiction with language doesn't really mean anything in terms of whether logic is discovered or invented.

    It's especially evident at the quantum scale that the idea that something can't simultaneously exist and not exist or be in two mutually exclusive locations simultaneously just isn't true.

    Even from one instantaneous moment to the next, your own body would be completely different because of the way that the individual particles that make up "you" behave.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:54 PM:
      > It's especially evident at the quantum scale that the idea that something can't simultaneously exist and not exist or be in two mutually exclusive locations simultaneously just isn't true.

    this is a misconception, but ok. i'm still not sure what you're saying, because you imply that necessary truths are necessary truths to deny that they're necessary truths, and it makes it rather incomprehensible to follow what you're saying.
    the statement "x = x isn't some discovered property of the universe" is dependent on the validity of the law of identity, which is a necessary truth that cannot be denied without undermining the very concept of identity that the statement is expressing.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"Atheistic" — Yesterday at 11:57 PM:
    It's not a misconception.

    I don't know that there's much more we can discuss if we can't agree on this point.

    And again, making a linguistic contradiction doesn't demonstrate any real thing or property in the universe.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:57 PM:
      > I don't know that there's much more we can discuss if we can't agree on this point.

    that's typically what happens when someone affirms innate logical principles while having a conversation with someone who denies them. i would have to agree, it's rather difficult to go anywhere.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"H" — Yesterday at 11:58 PM:
    I spoke to a physicist and he told me that quantum logic is not a contradiction of classical laws of logic, and this is just sensationalism pushed by certain logicians
    but i'll get him here

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Yesterday at 11:58 PM:
    i think halaby has an article on the subject he recently shared
    Image [Prof. Gustavo Esteban Romero on PSR & Quantum Mechanics]
    the PSR requires that there be only one sufficient reason or explanation for each fact or event, which is impossible if the LNC is false.
    the PSR entails the LNC; LNC is a necessary condition for the PSR
    Image [Prof. Gustavo Esteban Romero academic credentials]

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Today at 12:47 AM:
David Deutsch, the Fabric of Reality wrote:
> Another type of experience which certainly cannot be artificially rendered is a logically impossible one. I have said that a flight simulator can create the experience of a physically impossible flight through a mountain. But nothing can create the experience of factorizing the number 181, because that is logically impossible: 181 is a prime number. (Believing that one has factorized 181 is a logically possible experience, but an internal one, & so also outside the scope of virtual reality.)
> ...
> Having excluded logically impossible experiences and internal experiences, we are left with the vast class of logically possible, external experiences - experiences of environments which are logically possible, but may or may not be physically possible (Table 5.1). Something is physically possible if it is not forbidden by the laws of physics. In this book I shall assume that the 'laws of physics' include an as yet unknown rule determining the initial state or other supplementary data necessary to give, in principle, a complete description of the multiverse (otherwise these data would be a set of intrinsically inexplicable facts) . In that case, an environment is physically possible if &only if it actually exists somewhere in the multiverse (i.e. in some universe or universes) .
> ...
> Thus, although we cannot yet detect any of these effects, our best theories already tell us that spacetime physics is never an exact description of reality. ...Nevertheless, everything in the multiverse is determined just as rigidly as in classical spacetime. Remove one snapshot, & the remaining ones determine it exactly. Remove most snapshots, & the few remaining ones may still determine everything that was removed, just as they do in spacetime. The difference is only that, unlike spacetime, the multiverse does not consist of the mutually determining layers I have called supersnapshots, which could serve as 'moments' of the multiverse. It is a complex, multi-dimensional jigsaw puzzle.
> In this jigsaw-puzzle multiverse, which neither consists of a sequence of moments nor permits a flow of time, the common-sense concept of cause and effect makes perfect sense.
> ...
> In everyday experience, however, causes always precede their effects, and this is because - at least in our vicinity in the multiverse - the number of distinct types of snapshot tends to increase rapidly with time, and hardly ever decreases. This property is related to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that ordered energy, such as chemical or gravitational potential energy, may be converted entirely into disordered energy, i.e. heat, but never vice versa. Heat is microscopically random motion.
In multiverse terms, this means many microscopically different states of motion in different universes.
> ...
> Let me sum up the elements of the quantum concept of time.
> Time is not a sequence of moments, nor does it flow. Yet our intuitions about the properties of time are broadly true. Certain events are indeed causes and effects of one another. Relative to an observer, the future is indeed open and the past fixed, and possibilities do indeed become actualities. The reason why our traditional theories of time are nonsense is that they try to express these true intuitions within the framework of a false classical physics. In quantum physics they make sense, because time was a quantum concept all along.


    Image [Table 5.1 from David Deutsch]

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

"M" — Today at 2:49 AM:
    also, when you say,
      > making a linguistic contradiction doesn't demonstrate any real thing or property in the universe.

    i'm not sure what you mean by "demonstrate", as linguistic contradictions and logical impossibilities are not meant to "demonstrate" anything in the sense of being truth-makers; they are understood as being meaningful because they are part of reasoning and predicated for in logic through correspondence to a supposed state of affairs that can or cannot accept affirmation in reality.
    ex, if we say "a married bachelor", we are making a linguistic contradiction, but this contradiction has meaningful correspondence to the idea that it is impossible for a person to be both married and a bachelor at the same time. this correspondence is not based on empirical observation and facets of language, but rather on the innate axioms of reason and the basic rules of logic that hold true universally and without exception—it is not dependent on human language or thought. to claim that the laws of logic are simply linguistic rules that we have created is to misunderstand the nature of these principles and to make a category error by conflating the truth-value of statements with the truth-maker of those statements.
    it's important to emphasize the role of the innate axioms of reason and the basic rules of logic as being independent of human language and thought, not simply linguistic rules we have created. truth-values aren't determined by the rules of language, they're determined by what makes the truth-value true, the truth-maker. which is not our language.
    while these universals may not be empirical existents in the universe, they still exist mentally and play a crucial role in our understanding of the world.
    the process of rationalisation or articulation of these laws does not change their fundamental status as the foundation of rationality and knowledge; it helps us understand and articulate the ways in which these principles are necessary for us to make sense of the world and communicate about it. it is possible to recognise that the laws of logic and other universals are human inventions and still acknowledge their innateness and essential role in our understanding of the world, as necessary for coherent thinking and knowledge acquisition.



image_2023-02-21_202028182.png
 Description:
 Filesize:  689.66 KB
 Viewed:  5655 Time(s)

image_2023-02-21_202028182.png



image_2023-02-21_202019223.png
 Description:
 Filesize:  701.03 KB
 Viewed:  5655 Time(s)

image_2023-02-21_202019223.png



image_2023-02-21_201959038.png
 Description:
 Filesize:  220.46 KB
 Viewed:  5655 Time(s)

image_2023-02-21_201959038.png


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Benji
Random spam moderator
Reputation: 3

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 58
Location: The Netherlands

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

M. wrote:
waking up finnegan wrote:
M. wrote:
Jesus Christ.
I am glad I'm not in the dating pool anymore, it must be a minefield by now.


Careful, they'll dox you and try to get your job taken away.

How dare you not want a man??? Embarassed Embarassed Embarassed

at least SOME people still have sense.

These medical monstrosities will eventually be a chapter in history, and hopefully not before the conspiring corporations and profiteering propagandists are prosecuted for their roles in inflicting these horrors on our most vulnerable: the children and the mentally ill !

The warfare is at your doorsteps, folks. Wake up


Take your meds grandpa

_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
waking up finnegan
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 0

Joined: 02 Jan 2023
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Wed Feb 22, 2023 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Benji wrote:


did you have a question, or can you only bray and bark,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M.
Master Cheater
Reputation: 23

Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 267
Location: wat

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems Shrooms will have to make another alt account
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Benji
Random spam moderator
Reputation: 3

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 58
Location: The Netherlands

PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2023 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100020647177392

Fucking weirdo just sent me a message on FB and sent an email to my spam email?

So that's Talix, good to know.



Screenshot_20230224-000639~2.png
 Description:
 Filesize:  96.45 KB
 Viewed:  5514 Time(s)

Screenshot_20230224-000639~2.png



Screenshot_20230224-000246.png
 Description:
 Filesize:  214.61 KB
 Viewed:  5516 Time(s)

Screenshot_20230224-000246.png



_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
M.
Master Cheater
Reputation: 23

Joined: 09 Dec 2007
Posts: 267
Location: wat

PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2023 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So Talix is into bathsalts too now?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Black Magic
I post too much
Reputation: 5

Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 2221

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2023 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

get rekt
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Benji
Random spam moderator
Reputation: 3

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Posts: 58
Location: The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This guy is relentless.


Screenshot_20230304-002725~2.png
 Description:
 Filesize:  185.91 KB
 Viewed:  4697 Time(s)

Screenshot_20230304-002725~2.png



_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

CE Wiki   IRC (#CEF)   Twitter
Third party websites