God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

You are changing the discussion. Killing is wrong. It can never be justified as right. It can only be justified as the lesser of two evils. Punsihments would be commiserate to the crime and outside this discussion.

So... when are you going to address that you would believe raping children is good if everyone else believed it was good?

 

[ding]

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing?

When you simplified if A=B and B=C then A=C into A=A

God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself. So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered? . apples and oranges. just curious, how can they all equal the same without being the same ... sounds like an invention.

www.usmessageboard.com

No because i was working under agreed upon definition of the = sign.

If you want to prove that a house equals a diamond ring then you have to show the proof not just state it.

Like I said it has been established that for the statement If a=b ...... that certain assumptions are accepted.

But we do not have to accept those assumptions if we choose not to but then the parties of every conversation would first have to establish the definitions of all the terms used in that conversation. This is the reason we have agreed upon definitions for words and symbols.

Based upon your "logic" there would be no need for the transitive law of mathematics.

Here's another example of the transitive law.... If I'm blood related to Kevin Bacon and Kevin Bacon is blood related to you, then we're related.

if A=B and B=C then A=C

This is not A=A

It only works if the assumptions made are agreed upon.

and here we go again with those pesky definitions.

related to is not the same thing as equivalent to.

This is the reason we have spent so much time compiling a lexicon of words and symbols and their agreed upon definitions.

Wrong. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Reality is truth.

Our reality is our perception of the states of things.

No. There really is such a thing as reality that is independent of man's perception of reality. What you are describing is perception. What I am describing as the final state of fact or reality.

The definition of reality says you are wrong. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Reality is truth.

If we are incapable of perceiving every state or dimension in which an object exists then we cannot perceive the reality of that object.

Does The 4th Dimension Actually Exist?

Length, width, and height are the three variables we can measure, and they can express and explain the world around us. But, what if we can perceive the 4th dimension?

www.worldatlas.com

Like I said, truth is discovered. Eventually error fails. That does not negate the fact that truth is reality and not a perception of reality. Truth is independent of man. Truth exists unto itself just like logic does.

right wrong and truth are completely different things.

I didn't say wrong. I said error. Truth is discovered. When an error is made it eventually reveals itself and truth is discovered. It's the basis for science.

Our reality can only be what we are capable of observing. If we are incapable of observing the entirety of something then our reality is never truth

Which is exactly why truth is discovered.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

So your value judgements are just opinions? They can't be right or wrong because there is no right or wrong?

I never said we as a society do not agree on what behaviors are acceptable or not.

The thing is different societies think different behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable.

But society would have no basis for agreeing based upon correctness. It's just their preference. They could agree on raping children and you would have no basis for opposing it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

In the religious argument, it was noted that the newborn would be innocent of any sin and that, at the time of the discussion, they would invariably die after experiencing nothing in life but extreme suffering, that the event was purely evil and thus disproved the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

Interesting logical test, though perhaps unnecessarily gross. Definitely not buying the argument that good vs evil in any sense has proven to be more than subjective reality. Regardless of one's privilege, adult life involves conscious struggle every day. None enjoy cleaning up poop, whether their own or a baby's.

The sane aspire to do the best they can with what they've got. We often have little choice and fail to meet other's expectations of us. We can only try to be happy, decent, caring.. No guarantees except death and taxes. There's no plan. No ultimate good or evil. Granted, we sure like to think there's more to it. Hope springs eternal, but so does greed and piss poor planning. Consider abortion. Many don't until forced to.

 

[Taz]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

You must be evil then, because I've yet to find anything good about you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They could agree on raping children and you would have no basis for opposing it.

That's absurd. We could easily make compelling arguments against child rape, convince others, and self govern. This is definitely the dumbest argument regarding moral relativism. Ironically, child rape was just fine and dandy in almost every society not ling ago. And we improved that by better, secular ideas, quite in spite of religion and its followers. So going down this road is going to make religion and its idiotic ideas of divinely dictated, objective morality look pretty bad.

So be my guest...

 

[ding]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

You must be evil then, because I've yet to find anything good about you.

A cancer would consider a surgeon evil, Taz.

 

[ding]

They could agree on raping children and you would have no basis for opposing it.

That's absurd. We could easily make compelling arguments against child rape, convince others, and self govern. This is definitely the dumbest argument regarding moral relativism. Ironically, child rape was just fine and dandy in almost every society not ling ago. And we improved that by better, secular ideas, quite in spite of religion and its followers. So going down this road is going to make religion and its idiotic ideas of divinely dictated, objective morality look pretty bad.

So be my guest...

His logic, not mine. My argument is that it is logic which establishes standards of right and wrong. Such that it does not matter what popular opinion decides. Error will eventually fail and truth will eventually win out.

 

[ding]

Because it's fucking logical.

 

[ding]

Moral relativity is illogical.

 

[ding]

Moral relativity is subjective.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

My argument is that it is logic which establishes standards of right and wrong. Such that it does not matter what popular opinion decides.

Interesting.Somewhat agree. Just one issue: logic doesn't decide much. It just operates on premises. So are then left arguing over the premises. But i would agree that we can find a morality that is based on some objective premises. Like, "Humans are better off when they arent being beaten or killed", for example. But you arent entirely going to escape some relativism. Especially so, when magical religious belief is thrown into the mix.

 

[Grumblenuts]

But i would agree that we can find a morality that is based on some objective premises. Like, "Humans are better off when they arent being beaten or killed", for example. But you arent entirely going to escape some relativism. Especially so, when magical religious belief is thrown into the mix.

Many worse off, some better. Overall? I think that's apt to turn into a new subjective argument over the moral "goodness" of advancing technology. Arguably, some American Natives killed and beat others, but they seem to have got along pretty well overall and lived far more sustainably.

HBO's 'Exterminate All the Brutes' Is a Masterpiece

'I Am Not Your Negro' director Raoul Peck's “origin story” of white supremacy may be the most politically radical and intellectually challenging work of nonfiction ever made for TV

time.com

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

You are changing the discussion. Killing is wrong. It can never be justified as right. It can only be justified as the lesser of two evils. Punsihments would be commiserate to the crime and outside this discussion.

So... when are you going to address that you would believe raping children is good if everyone else believed it was good?

According to you evil is not extant so therefore it cannot be chosen

And you refuse to acknowledge that the concept of childhood is a recent societal invention.

Parents used to marry their daughters off at age 13. Not too long ago people thought 16 was the age where children became adults.

And we justify killing all the time.

How many examples do I have to give you before you realize that as a society we do not believe that all killing a person is always wrong?

Societal opinions of what is right and wrong change as society changes. Therefore there is no standard

 

[Blues Man]

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing?

When you simplified if A=B and B=C then A=C into A=A

God does exist. Itelligent design in the Universe is prof of God.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself. So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered? . apples and oranges. just curious, how can they all equal the same without being the same ... sounds like an invention.

www.usmessageboard.com

No because i was working under agreed upon definition of the = sign.

If you want to prove that a house equals a diamond ring then you have to show the proof not just state it.

Like I said it has been established that for the statement If a=b ...... that certain assumptions are accepted.

But we do not have to accept those assumptions if we choose not to but then the parties of every conversation would first have to establish the definitions of all the terms used in that conversation. This is the reason we have agreed upon definitions for words and symbols.

Based upon your "logic" there would be no need for the transitive law of mathematics.

Here's another example of the transitive law.... If I'm blood related to Kevin Bacon and Kevin Bacon is blood related to you, then we're related.

if A=B and B=C then A=C

This is not A=A

It only works if the assumptions made are agreed upon.

and here we go again with those pesky definitions.

related to is not the same thing as equivalent to.

This is the reason we have spent so much time compiling a lexicon of words and symbols and their agreed upon definitions.

Wrong. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Reality is truth.

Our reality is our perception of the states of things.

No. There really is such a thing as reality that is independent of man's perception of reality. What you are describing is perception. What I am describing as the final state of fact or reality.

The definition of reality says you are wrong. The definition of reality is the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Reality is truth.

If we are incapable of perceiving every state or dimension in which an object exists then we cannot perceive the reality of that object.

Does The 4th Dimension Actually Exist?

Length, width, and height are the three variables we can measure, and they can express and explain the world around us. But, what if we can perceive the 4th dimension?

www.worldatlas.com

Like I said, truth is discovered. Eventually error fails. That does not negate the fact that truth is reality and not a perception of reality. Truth is independent of man. Truth exists unto itself just like logic does.

right wrong and truth are completely different things.

I didn't say wrong. I said error. Truth is discovered. When an error is made it eventually reveals itself and truth is discovered. It's the basis for science.

Our reality can only be what we are capable of observing. If we are incapable of observing the entirety of something then our reality is never truth

Which is exactly why truth is discovered.

We are always working on some sort of assumption because that's how our minds work. If we can't perceive something then it will never be discovered.

If our brains are incapable of the processes required to understand something we will never understand it

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

So you're changing your tune again.

Did you not say the math does not exist?

If it does not exist it cannot be discovered can it?

Exact right triangles are a man made construct. So the math describing them is a man made construct

There is no reason to think the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Never changed my tune. You take things out of context cause you have nothing else.

I love how hard you are trying to prove this.

Einstein did not invent E=mc^2. He discovered it.

I quoted you verbatim.

And you still deny you said it

Math is a human invention as a way to represent what we see.

You are confusing math and what math was invented to describe.

There is nothing to prove that the mathematics of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours

Man discovered math. Man did not invent math. Math is universal. Same for logic, science, music, etc.

you are confusing math with the things it was invented to describe.

No. I'm not. E=mc^2 wasn't invented. It was discovered. Einstein could not make it be anything he wanted it to be like Apple could with its iPod. So E=mc^2 isn't an invention, it is a mathematical reality that describes a physical phenomenon. The physical phenomenon and the math that describes it were discovered.

The math that describes the relationship between matter and energy is a human invention.

You are confusing the math with the things it is being used to describe.

So I invented that if A=B and B=C then A=C?

Mathematics was invented to describe observed phenomenon in the natural world.

Like the path of a thrown object or the acceleration of a body due to gravity.

It is a representation of the phenomenon not the phenomenon itself.

So... if A=B and B=C then A=C was invented and not discovered?

All you are doing is saying A =A

Not much of a "discovery" is it ?

Logic is nothing but a system invented by humans to examine human reasoning.

Is that your way of saying the transitive law was discovered?

No it was invented when man invented a system of correct inference AKA logic

You said it wasn't much of a discovery though, right? You didn't say it was no discovery.

It's not a "discovery" to say A=A

Do you know what sarcasm is?

But it's not saying A=A. It is comparing three different things. A, B and C.

No it isn't

because we have a definition for the concept represented by the = sign.

If A =B then B and A are the same thing so you are not comparing different things but rather you are giving the same thing different names.

Let's say A is a house and B is a diamond ring and C is a Lamborghini. Are they all the same thing?

Like I said we have defined the meaning of the = sign.

if you do not use the = sign then you are not giving different names to the same thing.

So you are arguing that a house and a diamond ring and a Lamborghini are all the same things?

I guess since you believe you can make logic be anything you want that makes sense to you.

No. I never once said that or tried to prove it.

And what you are doing is playing with language and that is not logic.

You were the one who said they were the same thing to justify that math is an invention. I am the one who said the transitive law was discovered and not created by man but exists unto itself just as logic does because the transitive law is based upon logic.

Where did I say a house and a diamond ring are the same thing? The entire if A=B and B=C then A=C statement is based on certain assumptions. If you change those assumptions or ignore then then the rule breaks down.

Logic is a human invention as a system of correct inference.

Math was invented by humans to describe observed phenomena

There is no reason to think the mathematics or logic of an alien intelligence will be the same as ours.

Logic, like math is discovered. You can't make them be anything you want them to be. Just like you can't make right and wrong be anything you want them to be.

The rules of logic have been set down in the past and expanded by different cultures throughout history.

The system of rules was made by men and is a product of the human mind and are therefore uniquely human.

Logic isn't something floating out in the ether like hydrogen atoms

Logic is based upon truth and truth is based upon objectivity. Truth and logic are discovered through objectivity.

Truth. Obviously your truth and my truth are not the same thing.

a statement can only be true if we all agree on the definition of the terms used.

So now i suppose that there is some ultimate source of the definitions of all terms waiting to be "discovered " too right?

I never realized truth was a popularity contest.

Truth like logic exists unto itself and are discovered.

It is.

We can't even agree if the statement "Killing people is wrong" is true or not.

Killing people is wrong. Sometimes people choose to do wrong because it is the lesser of two evils. Not because they think it's right to kill.

So then the killing of a person for any reason should have the same consequences but it doesn't because we have subjectively rationalized when it is acceptable to kill.

And if evil in not extant as you have said how can once choose between a lesser or a greater evil if neither exists?

Think of evil as the absence of good but we use the word evil as a literary convenience.

Good is not an entity either.

Good is a value judgement.

These are human constructs

 

[frigidweirdo]

We can see the vast number of life forms here on the planet Earth. The oceans, on land, the different varieties of plants. All this life did not just happen by accident , as many non beleiving scientist say. God does exist. This is a planet with air , water, and food for us all to consume. It was not made by accident. This world was created for us by an intelligent God. We did not evolve from apes . We were all created by God. Designed in his likeness. Your thoughts.

So, your argument is that something can't just happen by accident.

Which means God didn't appear by accident either.

So how did God appear? Who created God?

 

[Blues Man]

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

So if I kill someone who is trying to kill me, that’s not logically good?

what happens when the laws of nature break down as they do in black holes?

That's not technically correct. The mathematics break down.

A distinction without a difference

I disagree. The laws of nature don't break down. Our understanding of the laws of nature is limited and breaks down. The math does not exist to properly model what happens at the singularity because our understanding of the physics is incomplete when the size of the universe is infinitesimally small.

So you said thing like math are discovered so that mathematics must exist outside the human brain now you say that math to describe what happens in black holes doesn't exist.

So which is it?

OR

Maybe the minds of human beings are incapable of the intellectual processes needed to understand what happens in the instances where math fails.

It is neither. Our understanding of the physics is limited. Because our understanding of the physics is incomplete, the equations - or math - is limited. Therefore, the equations - or math - do not presently exist to describe what happens when the field equations yield infinite densities.

The math is not failing. The math is showing the limitation or boundary of our understanding of the physics.

So now you say we have to create the math that is needed to understand these things. But earlier you said mathematics wasn't created by humans but was "discovered" because it already existed before humans did.

So which is it?

Neither because you keep misstating what I write. Try using my exact quote to make your points and you will discover your error.

You said math was discovered not created by humans.

That means mathematics exist apart from humans and the human brain.

Then you say that no math exists to describe what happens in black holes but you imply that it must exist because humans did not create mathematics but rather discovered it.

So how can you say that the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

It does not imply that at all. The physics have not been discovered that describe what happens when Friedmann's solution to Einstein's field equations yield infinite densities. Once the physics are discovered it can be modeled using mathematical equations.

Of course it does

Either man invented the concepts of mathematics or man didn't.

You said man discovered them that means that mathematics exist whether or not humans exist.

You are all over the map. Man discovered the concepts of math. Math is not unique to man. Any intelligent being can discover the concepts of math. Mathematical truths exist independent of any creature. Mathematical truths exist in and of themselves.

Just as man did not invent that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Man discovered that water consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.

So then how can you say the math to describe black holes doesn't exist?

Again... not that they don't exist but that the present equations yield infinite densities at it's boundary. You keep misstating that. But to answer your question the math hasn't been discovered yet because the physics of the boundary condition has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that the math does exist?

Make up your mind.

If the math does exist then we must be incapable of understanding it.

The math that describes what happens at the boundary of black holes or the beginning of the universe has not been discovered yet because the physics for those events has not been discovered yet.

So now you are saying that those things exist out there in the ether somewhere and we will eventually stumble upon them.

That is not the same thing as saying they do not exist.

See the 2 min 35 sec mark.

So he's saying that the math exists you are saying it doesn't exist.

And that is just one man's opinion anyway.

We are both saying that mathematical and scientific truths are discovered. Just like logic is discovered. No one invented that if A=B and B=C then A must equal C. Just like no one invented A^2 + B^2 = C^2 for right triangles. These truths were discovered.

But please do keep arguing against it. I can do this all day.

Logic can be subjective, like the guys who thought it was logical to crash 747s into buildings, or put explosives in their underwear.

Only you would believe that logic is subjective, taz, only you.

Muslims thought that 9/11 was logical. You lose.

That's some impressive display of logic on your part, taz.

You are just as logical as they were.

That's why logic can be subjective. You're for sure not the final arbiter of logic, that would be totally against logic.

Taz, Taz, Taz.... people are subjective. Logic is objective. You are confusing people's subjectivity for logic.

Logic can be both, as in 2+2=4, that's objective logic. Subjective logic is like someone who thinks that it's logical that they know everything. Like you.

That's a silly use of logic on your part and shows your subjectivity. I have never claimed to know everything; far from it as I will gladly admit to my ignorance on many things. What I do claim is that logic cannot be anything people want it to be. That logic is objective. And the only way logic can be subjective is from the misapplication of logic by subjective humans. Which is what you have used for every one of your examples.

Misapplication according to you. Not to them. So who gets to choose?

Reality

Then it was logical for them to do 9/11, which they said was retaliation for the US bombing Muslim countries and backing Israel. Seems logical to me too.

Any rationalization of violence as good is illogical, taz.

But not all acts of violence are considered bad or immoral because we have subjectively rationalized that not all violence is "bad".

The lesser of two evils does not moralize the lesser of the two evils.

Of course it does because we do not punish one and we do punish the other therefore one is right and one is wrong.

It's OK for your government to send you to a foreign country to kill people but not OK for you to go to a foreign country and kill those same people on your own.

It's OK for the government to kill a murderer but it's not OK for a member of the victim's family to kill that same murderer.

Evil is just another subjective value judgement we make.

It's called the lesser of two evils for a reason.

Evil is subjective. So any action predicated upon the evilness of another action is subjective and therefore rationalized

Evil is not extant. It is the absence of good.

Good is subjective.

therefore evil is subjective

Evil is the absence of good. It's like cold or darkness. It's the negation of something else.

Good is a effectively a standard which exists for logical reasons.

good is not a standard because it is subjective.

Standards are not subjective. Human beings are subjective. Standards are based upon logic and logic exists independently of man.

There is no standard as to what is good.

And logic was invented by men as a system for correct inference.

Logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process.

If that it were true that there is no standard as to what is good, then all behaviors would lead to equal outcomes and we know they don't.

If logic is an invention, then we could conclude anything we want from logic which we can't.

If logic is nothing but man's study of his own reasoning process, then there is nothing which can define the outputs of his reasoning process as right or wrong. In fact, you couldn't even say what I am arguing is wrong because you would have no logical basis for saying what is right or wrong.

Anytime we make a value judgement it is subjective.

One can logically come to the conclusion that killing a person is the correct action even if you think killing is "wrong".

As I have stated many times killing a person can be called good or bad so there is no absolute agreement that killing is right or wrong.

So your value judgements are just opinions? They can't be right or wrong because there is no right or wrong?

I never said we as a society do not agree on what behaviors are acceptable or not.

The thing is different societies think different behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable.

But society would have no basis for agreeing based upon correctness. It's just their preference. They could agree on raping children and you would have no basis for opposing it.

The idea of what is correct has changed along with societies.

When human society consisted of small nomadic tribes those tribes made choices that would not work in a large stationary society but those decisions worked for the small tribe struggling to survive.

We didn't pass laws against murder or theft because of some standard of right and wrong. When those first laws were passed it was because murder and theft threatened the stability and success of the society. Over the millennia those laws became ingrained in the people raised in those societies and we have attached the value judgements of right and wrong good and bad to a litany of behaviors.

In short laws were passed by the ruling class to keep the citizens under control and productive not because the rulers cared if the people lived or died.

Religion is no different.

 

[Taz]

You must be evil then, because I've yet to find anything good about you.

A cancer would consider a surgeon evil, Taz.

So you don't dispute being evil. Good for you.