Nature of God

Nature of God

Read 15331 times

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #15 on: July 22, 2019, 11:11:12 am »
What question does this beg?
You are presuming logic is a controller, as you argue that logic is a controller. For instance you assert that logic is “making sure” things are occurring logically, as if it is a person watching, but that’s what you seem to be trying to prove. I think the argument will also fall apart once you start examining specific examples, in particular among the human realm where almost everything proceeds by desire instead of by logic. If you really believe this argument, why don’t you give a list of examples so that it becomes clearer?

1

Michael John

  • **
  • 43 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Truth Is God
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #16 on: July 22, 2019, 04:14:36 pm »
You are presuming logic is a controller, as you argue that logic is a controller. For instance you assert that logic is “making sure” things are occurring logically, as if it is a person watching, but that’s what you seem to be trying to prove.
How then should I say it?.... There is a principle of logic that "maintains" the logical consistency of facts in the universe? Or perhaps the word "fact" is a human convention to describe events. After all, logic and propositions are a part of human language, right? Or is our language trying to describe something real about the universe? What is necessary to prove that the universe is truly logical apart from our language, if that is possible, proof being an invention of human intelligence? Would it be sufficient to derive the laws of physics as we know them from logic alone?

2

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #17 on: July 22, 2019, 07:34:02 pm »
You are presuming logic is a controller, as you argue that logic is a controller. For instance you assert that logic is “making sure” things are occurring logically, as if it is a person watching, but that’s what you seem to be trying to prove.
How then should I say it?.... There is a principle of logic that "maintains" the logical consistency of facts in the universe? Or perhaps the word "fact" is a human convention to describe events. After all, logic and propositions are a part of human language, right? Or is our language trying to describe something real about the universe? What is necessary to prove that the universe is truly logical apart from our language, if that is possible, proof being an invention of human intelligence? Would it be sufficient to derive the laws of physics as we know them from logic alone?
mj: How then should I say it?....

jc: Indeed, this is why I'm asking for examples of what you mean that logic can be the controller. You are only saying, “logic,” not, “this particular aspect of reality, and that aspect, that are logical.” You seem to be expecting the reader to know what you're thinking, so if you express yourself more clearly both they and you may know more what you are trying to say. Where is the logic you see everywhere?

mj: There is a principle of logic that "maintains" the logical consistency of facts in the universe?

jc: Calling logic a maintainer, you are presuming logic is a maintainer, which was your argument. From my perspective, some things in nature are in accord with logic, but they are not maintained by logic. Many or most things in nature are not in accord with logic. I've given a few counterexamples. For example greed is not logical, but most humans are greedy. Anger is not logical, but most are hostile.

mj: Or perhaps the word "fact" is a human convention to describe events.

jc: This is true, but you seem to be using “fact” and “logical” in a way that seems synonymous to you, but where I don't see the comparison. Illogical things are facts too. What connection are you seeing?

mj: After all, logic and propositions are a part of human language, right? Or is our language trying to describe something real about the universe?

jc: I'd say the latter. Truth is reality's description. Greater truth describes reality better, but reality can never be captured by words or concepts. This is a huge flaw in the thinking of most, who conclude they have known, when they have only described, and in private terms rather than objective terms, as well.

mj: What is necessary to prove that the universe is truly logical apart from our language, if that is possible, proof being an invention of human intelligence?

jc: Again, start to give examples. For instance, are you saying the atoms are logical, with their varied properties? Are you saying the way grass grows is logical, or the way the planets orbit the Sun? Use your words to point to real things, rather than falling into an abstraction where meaning disappears.

mj: Would it be sufficient to derive the laws of physics as we know them from logic alone?

jc: Physics arises as a means of describing scientifically measured phenomena. Just as the theologians err to think they know God without experience, a man would err trying to derive physics with his mind. Newton was only dethroned by Einstein, for instance, because Einstein's theories fit the facts better.

3

Michael John

  • **
  • 43 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Truth Is God
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #18 on: July 22, 2019, 09:58:40 pm »
mj: How then should I say it?....

jc: Indeed, this is why I'm asking for examples of what you mean that logic can be the controller. You are only saying, “logic,” not, “this particular aspect of reality, and that aspect, that are logical.” You seem to be expecting the reader to know what you're thinking, so if you express yourself more clearly both they and you may know more what you are trying to say. Where is the logic you see everywhere?
The alternative to a logical universe is complete chaos. Suppose you could feel an object in one hand but not in the other when you feel one hand with the other perfectly fine. Suppose every object had a different color and shape when looking at it with one eye than when looking at it with the other eye. Suppose everything looked and felt differently seconds later at random times. Then you would not be able to make any sense of the world whatsoever. You could not identify or name any properties of anything or specify any relation between any two events. Learning would be impossible. Need I say more? The only reason things make sense at all is because there is some principle of nature requiring facts to be consistent at all times at all places about all things.

mj: There is a principle of logic that "maintains" the logical consistency of facts in the universe?

jc: Calling logic a maintainer, you are presuming logic is a maintainer, which was your argument. From my perspective, some things in nature are in accord with logic, but they are not maintained by logic. Many or most things in nature are not in accord with logic. I've given a few counterexamples. For example greed is not logical, but most humans are greedy. Anger is not logical, but most are hostile.
All these behaviors make sense in the right context. Of course humans make mistakes in judgment in the process of learning. And good and evil deeds will be seen as consistent with heaven and hell when the final judgement comes.

mj: What is necessary to prove that the universe is truly logical apart from our language, if that is possible, proof being an invention of human intelligence?

jc: Again, start to give examples. For instance, are you saying the atoms are logical, with their varied properties? Are you saying the way grass grows is logical, or the way the planets orbit the Sun? Use your words to point to real things, rather than falling into an abstraction where meaning disappears.
If all facts exist in conjunction with each other, then this implies that every fact implies the others. The equation is:
p^q => (p=>q)^(q=>p)

I think it would be harder to prove that a logical contradiction actually exists in the world. That is usually consider a symptom of insanity.

mj: Would it be sufficient to derive the laws of physics as we know them from logic alone?

jc: Physics arises as a means of describing scientifically measured phenomena. Just as the theologians err to think they know God without experience, a man would err trying to derive physics with his mind. Newton was only dethroned by Einstein, for instance, because Einstein's theories fit the facts better.

Check out: logictophysics.com

4

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2019, 12:33:54 pm »
mj: How then should I say it?....

jc: Indeed, this is why I'm asking for examples of what you mean that logic can be the controller. You are only saying, “logic,” not, “this particular aspect of reality, and that aspect, that are logical.” You seem to be expecting the reader to know what you're thinking, so if you express yourself more clearly both they and you may know more what you are trying to say. Where is the logic you see everywhere?
The alternative to a logical universe is complete chaos. Suppose you could feel an object in one hand but not in the other when you feel one hand with the other perfectly fine. Suppose every object had a different color and shape when looking at it with one eye than when looking at it with the other eye. Suppose everything looked and felt differently seconds later at random times. Then you would not be able to make any sense of the world whatsoever. You could not identify or name any properties of anything or specify any relation between any two events. Learning would be impossible. Need I say more? The only reason things make sense at all is because there is some principle of nature requiring facts to be consistent at all times at all places about all things.

mj: There is a principle of logic that "maintains" the logical consistency of facts in the universe?

jc: Calling logic a maintainer, you are presuming logic is a maintainer, which was your argument. From my perspective, some things in nature are in accord with logic, but they are not maintained by logic. Many or most things in nature are not in accord with logic. I've given a few counterexamples. For example greed is not logical, but most humans are greedy. Anger is not logical, but most are hostile.
All these behaviors make sense in the right context. Of course humans make mistakes in judgment in the process of learning. And good and evil deeds will be seen as consistent with heaven and hell when the final judgement comes.

mj: What is necessary to prove that the universe is truly logical apart from our language, if that is possible, proof being an invention of human intelligence?

jc: Again, start to give examples. For instance, are you saying the atoms are logical, with their varied properties? Are you saying the way grass grows is logical, or the way the planets orbit the Sun? Use your words to point to real things, rather than falling into an abstraction where meaning disappears.
If all facts exist in conjunction with each other, then this implies that every fact implies the others. The equation is:
p^q => (p=>q)^(q=>p)

I think it would be harder to prove that a logical contradiction actually exists in the world. That is usually consider a symptom of insanity.

mj: Would it be sufficient to derive the laws of physics as we know them from logic alone?

jc: Physics arises as a means of describing scientifically measured phenomena. Just as the theologians err to think they know God without experience, a man would err trying to derive physics with his mind. Newton was only dethroned by Einstein, for instance, because Einstein's theories fit the facts better.

Check out: logictophysics.com
mj: The alternative to a logical universe is complete chaos. Suppose you could feel an object in one hand but not in the other when you feel one hand with the other perfectly fine. Suppose every object had a different color and shape when looking at it with one eye than when looking at it with the other eye. Suppose everything looked and felt differently seconds later at random times. Then you would not be able to make any sense of the world whatsoever. You could not identify or name any properties of anything or specify any relation between any two events. Learning would be impossible. Need I say more? The only reason things make sense at all is because there is some principle of nature requiring facts to be consistent at all times at all places about all things.

jc: You are merely citing the fact the material plane abides, not explaining why it abides. To hypothesize the world could become immediately illogical, is to hypothesize that whatever power holds the world together, could become immediately unglued. But you don’t know that, and the evidence is this will not occur, no matter how many times you open or close your eyes. It is not just illogical the world would become chaotic as you envision, but impossible. I think you are misapplying the ideal of logic to unreal zones.

mj: All these behaviors make sense in the right context.

jc: I agree that all men seem logical to themselves. Yet anger and greed are signs there is no mastery of the mind, and if the mind is not mastered the entity can’t be called logical.

mj: Of course humans make mistakes in judgment in the process of learning.

jc: You propose humans are on a course of rapid learning and self-perfection, but these sins abide throughout the lifetime without learning what is wrong or what to do about it. This is what the Bible meant by “original sin,” and these sins are both deep and tragic.

mj: And good and evil deeds will be seen as consistent with heaven and hell when the final judgement comes.

jc: This is the Christian flaw of saying right or wrong is enough, when what mattered was quality of personality. Even Paul says men are not judged by deeds. But if he’s wrong about the meaning of Christ’s life, they might be judged by their unamended character.

mj: If all facts exist in conjunction with each other, then this implies that every fact implies the others. The equation is:
p^q => (p=>q)^(q=>p)

jc: This is the non-sequitur of all time! In fact a sin-free society would be possible, without bringing along any of the human negativity, for instance if the angels descended. Then they wouldn’t even understand if you tried to use words such as “war” or “crime.”

mj: I think it would be harder to prove that a logical contradiction actually exists in the world. That is usually consider a symptom of insanity.

jc: This seems to me to be a very bizarre remark, since contradiction is the stuff and drama of human society! Every so-called action film has harsh opposition as its core thrill. What about the study of fallacies, as a component of Logic? Some are just wrong. Again, supply an example of how what others think is contradiction, you say is not one.

mj: Check out: logictophysics.com

jc: I looked this over. This is a lone wolf, and it is easy for someone working alone to make mistakes in presumptions or mathematical manipulations. He admits it requires review, but no one has been interested. He also states emphatically that he cannot derive the whole of physics, thinking he’s successful in a limited region of quantum mechanics.

5

Michael John

  • **
  • 43 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Truth Is God
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2019, 09:00:04 pm »
jc: You are merely citing the fact the material plane abides, not explaining why it abides.
Why should I have to justify the premise that the world is logically consistent. That is simply the necessary condition to even start studying it. If you claim to have scientific pretensions, then you must hold to the notion that the laws of logic can be used to learn something about the universe. For without reason being relevant to the subject (the world), nothing is knowable or understandable. You are negating science itself with your objections.


To hypothesize the world could become immediately illogical, is to hypothesize that whatever power holds the world together, could become immediately unglued. But you don’t know that, and the evidence is this will not occur, no matter how many times you open or close your eyes. It is not just illogical the world would become chaotic as you envision, but impossible. I think you are misapplying the ideal of logic to unreal zones.
You've become confused. I'm the one arguing that the world is logical.


jc: This is the Christian flaw of saying right or wrong is enough, when what mattered was quality of personality. Even Paul says men are not judged by deeds. But if he’s wrong about the meaning of Christ’s life, they might be judged by their unamended character.
There is a reason why people do what they do. And much of it boils down to what they think about their own existence. If they think they will always live in some form or other, then they will act like there are consequences to their actions. And so they will do unto others what they would have other do unto them, etc. But if they think that their existence will end at death, they can't see any reason to do anything except what gets them fleeting pleasures while they can.

This is very much how propositions can be understood to be true or false. A true statement withstands every attempt to negate it. In symbols this is expressed as p = (~p=>p). And this can be proven with a simple truth-table. A false statement cannot withstand any truth. In symbols this is ~p = (p=>~p). If your faith withstand all attempts to negate it, then you prove yourself faithful and true. If your own efforts destroy you, then you represent a falsehood forever.

I think this is the whole point of life on this earth. It's a test of character and faith. We are prototypes being tested in the lab. If we withstand the test we will be put to good use. If we don't, then we are discarded as scrap. After all, how could we possibly believe that we could live forever without ever being tested. Theories are constantly being tested to see if they can be falsified. Theorems are proven by showing that attempts to negation them are absurd.


jc: I looked this over. This is a lone wolf, and it is easy for someone working alone to make mistakes in presumptions or mathematical manipulations. He admits it requires review, but no one has been interested. He also states emphatically that he cannot derive the whole of physics, thinking he’s successful in a limited region of quantum mechanics.
I've read it carefully a couple of times. I cannot find any flaw in the reasoning. Calling someone a "lone wolf" is an ad hominem which only reveals a pretentious use of science.

6

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2019, 03:23:03 pm »
jc: You are merely citing the fact the material plane abides, not explaining why it abides.
Why should I have to justify the premise that the world is logically consistent. That is simply the necessary condition to even start studying it. If you claim to have scientific pretensions, then you must hold to the notion that the laws of logic can be used to learn something about the universe. For without reason being relevant to the subject (the world), nothing is knowable or understandable. You are negating science itself with your objections.


To hypothesize the world could become immediately illogical, is to hypothesize that whatever power holds the world together, could become immediately unglued. But you don’t know that, and the evidence is this will not occur, no matter how many times you open or close your eyes. It is not just illogical the world would become chaotic as you envision, but impossible. I think you are misapplying the ideal of logic to unreal zones.
You've become confused. I'm the one arguing that the world is logical.


jc: This is the Christian flaw of saying right or wrong is enough, when what mattered was quality of personality. Even Paul says men are not judged by deeds. But if he’s wrong about the meaning of Christ’s life, they might be judged by their unamended character.
There is a reason why people do what they do. And much of it boils down to what they think about their own existence. If they think they will always live in some form or other, then they will act like there are consequences to their actions. And so they will do unto others what they would have other do unto them, etc. But if they think that their existence will end at death, they can't see any reason to do anything except what gets them fleeting pleasures while they can.

This is very much how propositions can be understood to be true or false. A true statement withstands every attempt to negate it. In symbols this is expressed as p = (~p=>p). And this can be proven with a simple truth-table. A false statement cannot withstand any truth. In symbols this is ~p = (p=>~p). If your faith withstand all attempts to negate it, then you prove yourself faithful and true. If your own efforts destroy you, then you represent a falsehood forever.

I think this is the whole point of life on this earth. It's a test of character and faith. We are prototypes being tested in the lab. If we withstand the test we will be put to good use. If we don't, then we are discarded as scrap. After all, how could we possibly believe that we could live forever without ever being tested. Theories are constantly being tested to see if they can be falsified. Theorems are proven by showing that attempts to negation them are absurd.


jc: I looked this over. This is a lone wolf, and it is easy for someone working alone to make mistakes in presumptions or mathematical manipulations. He admits it requires review, but no one has been interested. He also states emphatically that he cannot derive the whole of physics, thinking he’s successful in a limited region of quantum mechanics.
I've read it carefully a couple of times. I cannot find any flaw in the reasoning. Calling someone a "lone wolf" is an ad hominem which only reveals a pretentious use of science.
mj: Why should I have to justify the premise that the world is logically consistent.

jc: The world exists, but does not submit to logic by the routes you are describing. That the world doesn’t cease to exist when you close your eyes and imagine it is gone, does not mean logic was upholding it in the interim. You aren’t saying what is upholding it.

mj: That is simply the necessary condition to even start studying it.

jc: Scientists regard the fact the world exists as trivial, then begin their study. You’re adding in an extra layer insisting it is “logic” that is maintaining the existence of things.

mj: If you claim to have scientific pretensions, then you must hold to the notion that the laws of logic can be used to learn something about the universe.

jc: This is true, but you are moving into new ground, from your former statements that it is logic that prevents chaos. You are now using “logic” in a way more commonly used.

mj: For without reason being relevant to the subject (the world), nothing is knowable or understandable.

jc: Yes, but again this is new ground. You’ve changed the subject and appear to be weakening your claim that it is logic that  prevents the world from falling into chaos.

mj: You are negating science itself with your objections.

jc: No, I’m negating some strange philosophical claims where “logic” is ill-defined.

mj: You've become confused. I'm the one arguing that the world is logical.

jc: And I’d say the human realm is manifestly illogical in social regions, although the technological end has followed logic—though not far enough to preserve this planet. If you want to talk about logic there are many levels, humans found in one of the lowest. Your claim seems to be that without logic all descends into chaos, but the material plane abides without logic as its guide, and the human realm proceeds along illogical routes.

mj: There is a reason why people do what they do. And much of it boils down to what they think about their own existence. If they think they will always live in some form or other, then they will act like there are consequences to their actions. And so they will do unto others what they would have other do unto them, etc. But if they think that their existence will end at death, they can't see any reason to do anything except what gets them fleeting pleasures while they can.

jc: This is typical Christian thinking. Perhaps you should have been a preacher. There’s a lot more to be said here, but I’m sure you’re not interested. Humans don’t see their souls.

mj: This is very much how propositions can be understood to be true or false. A true statement withstands every attempt to negate it. In symbols this is expressed as p = (~p=>p). And this can be proven with a simple truth-table. A false statement cannot withstand any truth. In symbols this is ~p = (p=>~p). If your faith withstand all attempts to negate it, then you prove yourself faithful and true. If your own efforts destroy you, then you represent a falsehood forever.

jc: Actually there are layers upon layers of truth, otherwise the creation would not be profound. Only raw material truths have only one layer, and I mean extremely shallow. Reality breaks these symbols you think secure your fate in God’s sight. It’s another instance of what I’ve been citing, presuming right and wrong are enough, not virtue.

mj: I think this is the whole point of life on this earth. It's a test of character and faith. We are prototypes being tested in the lab. If we withstand the test we will be put to good use. If we don't, then we are discarded as scrap. After all, how could we possibly believe that we could live forever without ever being tested. Theories are constantly being tested to see if they can be falsified. Theorems are proven by showing that attempts to negation them are absurd.

jc: This is typical Christian thinking. I might wish that it were so, but then the souls would not be profound. This planetary situation is real, not a test designed for souls.

mj: I've read it carefully a couple of times. I cannot find any flaw in the reasoning. Calling someone a "lone wolf" is an ad hominem which only reveals a pretentious use of science.

jc: No, “lone wolf” means someone working without support or recognition. I haven’t met him, so can’t guess if he has wolfish tendencies or not. If you can’t see the flaws in his reasoning or math, perhaps you can be the first to send in a review to a scientific journal, as he admits to be what is required. Why don’t you write to him and be his friend? Then he wouldn’t be quite a lone wolf, even though neither of you publishes.

7

Michael John

  • **
  • 43 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Truth Is God
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2019, 06:14:57 pm »

mj: If you claim to have scientific pretensions, then you must hold to the notion that the laws of logic can be used to learn something about the universe.

jc: This is true, but you are moving into new ground, from your former statements that it is logic that prevents chaos. You are now using “logic” in a way more commonly used.
I think I see the problem. It's the distinction between epistemology verses ontology. We both agree that logic is a useful way to gain knowledge about the universe. But I go further, claiming that the universe is logical. You wish to limit logic to a human language used to gain human knowledge, both being an invention of human ingenuity. But I claim that logic reflects a reality in nature.

But if you limit logic and knowledge to only being a human contrivance, then you negate the correspondence principle that says things that are truly real can and are described by propositions that are true. It's an admission that we can never really know what the world is or what it's about. I suppose that may go along with the present paradigm of physics, the idea that every theory has the potential to being falsified. This is of course true when your theory is nothing more than making guesses to improve reverse engineering equations to fit statistical data points. You can't be sure of anything with that paradigm. But if a theory is developed from logic itself, then by definition it cannot be refuted by any means. If experiment proved logic wrong, then we would have no means left to understand the world.

8

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #23 on: July 26, 2019, 02:34:05 pm »

mj: If you claim to have scientific pretensions, then you must hold to the notion that the laws of logic can be used to learn something about the universe.

jc: This is true, but you are moving into new ground, from your former statements that it is logic that prevents chaos. You are now using “logic” in a way more commonly used.
I think I see the problem. It's the distinction between epistemology verses ontology. We both agree that logic is a useful way to gain knowledge about the universe. But I go further, claiming that the universe is logical. You wish to limit logic to a human language used to gain human knowledge, both being an invention of human ingenuity. But I claim that logic reflects a reality in nature.

But if you limit logic and knowledge to only being a human contrivance, then you negate the correspondence principle that says things that are truly real can and are described by propositions that are true. It's an admission that we can never really know what the world is or what it's about. I suppose that may go along with the present paradigm of physics, the idea that every theory has the potential to being falsified. This is of course true when your theory is nothing more than making guesses to improve reverse engineering equations to fit statistical data points. You can't be sure of anything with that paradigm. But if a theory is developed from logic itself, then by definition it cannot be refuted by any means. If experiment proved logic wrong, then we would have no means left to understand the world.
mj: I think I see the problem. It's the distinction between epistemology verses ontology. We both agree that logic is a useful way to gain knowledge about the universe. But I go further, claiming that the universe is logical.

jc: Yes.

mj: You wish to limit logic to a human language used to gain human knowledge, both being an invention of human ingenuity. But I claim that logic reflects a reality in nature.

jc: Not only human knowledge, but God’s knowledge too. And I allow non-lingual knowledge, in fact the vast majority of God’s knowledge is non-lingual, though no one has suspected non-lingual knowledge exists in Earth’s history. I have non-lingual knowledge. You’ve still failed to give any example of what you mean by logic reflecting a reality in nature, except that you’re amazed all doesn’t descend in chaos.

mj: But if you limit logic and knowledge to only being a human contrivance, then you negate the correspondence principle that says things that are truly real can and are described by propositions that are true.

jc: Logic and knowledge are properties of an observing or self-considering mind. Without a mind, these are absent. No propositions appear, if no one is watching. Or, can you give even one example of what you mean? If there are no examples, I presume you are in a false abstraction, misled by language into thinking something is there that isn’t. Things exist, but they are not described. Without mind there is no “truth,” per se, only what-is.

mj: It's an admission that we can never really know what the world is or what it's about.

jc: If we aren’t here. You are committing the fault you’ve described, confusing ontology or being with epistemology or knowledge. Give an example of logic without observers. It seems you don’t know what you know, or that you do not know yourself to be a knower.

mj: I suppose that may go along with the present paradigm of physics, the idea that every theory has the potential to being falsified. This is of course true when your theory is nothing more than making guesses to improve reverse engineering equations to fit statistical data points. You can't be sure of anything with that paradigm.

jc: Have you befriended your “lone wolf”? Or did you leave him to shine his light alone? He seems to be your one chance to prove the world is derived from logic, and that it is not merely logic’s role to confront and interpret the world. Even were it the case that his ideas are eventually accepted, there is a probability of a resonance that is not causative in nature. If you find logical theorems that match the world, these are probably not causes.

mj: But if a theory is developed from logic itself, then by definition it cannot be refuted by any means.

jc: Again, you have only the one example, so if you are serious about this you should be committed to supporting lone wolf. Perhaps he is running out of money and can’t keep his website up much longer. Then you could step in with the assistance required to keep what is critical to your worldview, afloat in the world. In the end the world must admit it takes power to build and maintain a world, and man’s part at best is to watch and enjoy.

mj: If experiment proved logic wrong, then we would have no means left to understand the world.

jc: You’re still surmising a connection between logic and the world, with no examples except perhaps the work of lone wolf. If mind is separable from matter, then nothing occurring on the physical plane can interfere, which I suspect is the meaning of freedom.

9

Michael John

  • **
  • 43 Posts
    • View Profile
    • The Truth Is God
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #24 on: July 26, 2019, 08:33:39 pm »
You’ve still failed to give any example of what you mean by logic reflecting a reality in nature, except that you’re amazed all doesn’t descend in chaos.
I'm not sure what kind of proof or example you're looking for. I thought the inherent impossibility of proving nature illogical as required by any sane mind was sufficient. I think your objections are equivalent to saying that there is no truth in the world, that truth is only a narrative to achieve political goals, or that truth is only a flawed human perspective, as in you have your truth, and I have mine, etc. This is the postmodernist view of truth. But if we can say with absolute certainty that there is something in the world/universe that is definitely and objectively true, then that would in and of itself proves the world is logical. For truth is necessarily a part of logic. If there is truth, then there is logic. You can't have one without the other.

The problem is that it is difficult to give a proposition about the world with enough detail to compel every reasonable being to admit it is true. Is this your objection? For example, if I pose the proposition, "whatever goes up will come down", then this would have been considered true for most of human history. Except now we have the ability to escape the earth's gravity. So I suppose this proposition cannot always be considered true. Or what if I say it is raining outside? This might be true for me but not true for you. And then someone might ask how do you define rain. Is it 10 drops of water every second in a square foot? Or maybe it's only 2 drops.

However, it seems truth can always be specified exactly in the realm of mathematics. That some element is included in a set or not can be determined without ambiguity. But propositions about the world are not mathematically well defined, and we can always argue whether those are true or not.  Nevertheless, it does seem obvious that we can say some things about the world without ambiguity. For example, we can say one point of space is different from another point of space, each is described by different coordinates. And every objective and reasonable soul can agree that this is so. We may disagree on what coordinates to assign to each point, but we all agree that the two points are different. And for the same reason we can all agree that each person on earth is different from every other person, since they are separated in space.

And there you have it. If each point in space is different than other points in space, then we have an absolute truth, and a logical world follows because truth is part of logic. Interestingly, this is where logictophysics.com starts, the logical conjunction of points in space leads to the derivation of physical laws as we know them today.


jc: Logic and knowledge are properties of an observing or self-considering mind. Without a mind, these are absent. No propositions appear, if no one is watching. Or, can you give even one example of what you mean? If there are no examples, I presume you are in a false abstraction, misled by language into thinking something is there that isn’t. Things exist, but they are not described. Without mind there is no “truth,” per se, only what-is.
This is the same as saying that there is no objective truth. Instead, each mind has  its own subjective perception on what is true. It is a postmodern philosophy which is self defeating. If there is no objective truth, then not even your statement is true that without minds there is no truth. It also negates the correspondence principle that things in reality can be described by propositions that are true. And it denies that logic is relevant to any subject since logic only applies if reality can be described by propositions that are objectively true.

But to entertain you for a moment, it seems you are asking what in reality is objectively a proposition that's either true or false. For it seems rocks in outer space do not state propositions. They may be described by propositions in our minds, but they are not propositions in and of themselves. They make no statements about themselves or about other things. So what in all the universe makes statements in and of themselves? Well, that of course would be human beings who make statements in the form of their words and their deeds. We are intentional creatures. Our minds are always busy thinking about ourselves and other things. We are constantly contriving statements in the form of memories and impressions and trying to find causal connections between them as we evaluate how events effect us and how we should behave to continue our existence. And the reason we even find value in knowing truth is because truth survives any attempt to negate it, and we want to survive as well. So we think that holding to the truth has some survival value. We love to claim that we are upholding truth and that we are entitled to honor and privileged status for doing so.

Would it help if there were a mathematical derivation of some theory that predicted entities that describe minds? Or would such a theory also only be in our minds and not in reality? In other words, does math and logic have any persuasive power in this discussion?

« Last Edit: July 26, 2019, 08:45:32 pm by Michael John »

10

jayceeii

  • **
  • 298 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: How to define the term "God"
« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2019, 12:25:03 pm »
You’ve still failed to give any example of what you mean by logic reflecting a reality in nature, except that you’re amazed all doesn’t descend in chaos.
I'm not sure what kind of proof or example you're looking for. I thought the inherent impossibility of proving nature illogical as required by any sane mind was sufficient. I think your objections are equivalent to saying that there is no truth in the world, that truth is only a narrative to achieve political goals, or that truth is only a flawed human perspective, as in you have your truth, and I have mine, etc. This is the postmodernist view of truth. But if we can say with absolute certainty that there is something in the world/universe that is definitely and objectively true, then that would in and of itself proves the world is logical. For truth is necessarily a part of logic. If there is truth, then there is logic. You can't have one without the other.

The problem is that it is difficult to give a proposition about the world with enough detail to compel every reasonable being to admit it is true. Is this your objection? For example, if I pose the proposition, "whatever goes up will come down", then this would have been considered true for most of human history. Except now we have the ability to escape the earth's gravity. So I suppose this proposition cannot always be considered true. Or what if I say it is raining outside? This might be true for me but not true for you. And then someone might ask how do you define rain. Is it 10 drops of water every second in a square foot? Or maybe it's only 2 drops.

However, it seems truth can always be specified exactly in the realm of mathematics. That some element is included in a set or not can be determined without ambiguity. But propositions about the world are not mathematically well defined, and we can always argue whether those are true or not.  Nevertheless, it does seem obvious that we can say some things about the world without ambiguity. For example, we can say one point of space is different from another point of space, each is described by different coordinates. And every objective and reasonable soul can agree that this is so. We may disagree on what coordinates to assign to each point, but we all agree that the two points are different. And for the same reason we can all agree that each person on earth is different from every other person, since they are separated in space.

And there you have it. If each point in space is different than other points in space, then we have an absolute truth, and a logical world follows because truth is part of logic. Interestingly, this is where logictophysics.com starts, the logical conjunction of points in space leads to the derivation of physical laws as we know them today.


jc: Logic and knowledge are properties of an observing or self-considering mind. Without a mind, these are absent. No propositions appear, if no one is watching. Or, can you give even one example of what you mean? If there are no examples, I presume you are in a false abstraction, misled by language into thinking something is there that isn’t. Things exist, but they are not described. Without mind there is no “truth,” per se, only what-is.
This is the same as saying that there is no objective truth. Instead, each mind has  its own subjective perception on what is true. It is a postmodern philosophy which is self defeating. If there is no objective truth, then not even your statement is true that without minds there is no truth. It also negates the correspondence principle that things in reality can be described by propositions that are true. And it denies that logic is relevant to any subject since logic only applies if reality can be described by propositions that are objectively true.

But to entertain you for a moment, it seems you are asking what in reality is objectively a proposition that's either true or false. For it seems rocks in outer space do not state propositions. They may be described by propositions in our minds, but they are not propositions in and of themselves. They make no statements about themselves or about other things. So what in all the universe makes statements in and of themselves? Well, that of course would be human beings who make statements in the form of their words and their deeds. We are intentional creatures. Our minds are always busy thinking about ourselves and other things. We are constantly contriving statements in the form of memories and impressions and trying to find causal connections between them as we evaluate how events effect us and how we should behave to continue our existence. And the reason we even find value in knowing truth is because truth survives any attempt to negate it, and we want to survive as well. So we think that holding to the truth has some survival value. We love to claim that we are upholding truth and that we are entitled to honor and privileged status for doing so.

Would it help if there were a mathematical derivation of some theory that predicted entities that describe minds? Or would such a theory also only be in our minds and not in reality? In other words, does math and logic have any persuasive power in this discussion?
mj: I'm not sure what kind of proof or example you're looking for.

jc: That’s your role. I don’t think one exists, and you’re trapped in a false abstraction.

mj: I thought the inherent impossibility of proving nature illogical as required by any sane mind was sufficient.

jc: The implication all are insane but oneself, is normally tendered by the insane. You’re adding nothing to your argument but hostility, to insist that understanding you must be a basic component of sanity. A man who can state his argument only one way, is usually closed-minded with little of value to say. I have listed examples of illogic in nature, in particular how humans follow desire in the end, reason not ruling their lives. War is illogical, but so is wanting more money for your family while your neighbor is starving.

I think I see the root of the confusion here, that you seem to be confounding the idea of logic, with mere stability or reproducibility of physical phenomena, that we call nature. I agree the world around us is stable, but don’t understand why you claim logic is the ruler.

mj: I think your objections are equivalent to saying that there is no truth in the world, that truth is only a narrative to achieve political goals, or that truth is only a flawed human perspective, as in you have your truth, and I have mine, etc.

jc: Indeed, so far there is no overriding objective truth in the world, including in the religions. All follow desire. All ignore tomorrow. Everything, as you say, is relative.

mj: This is the postmodernist view of truth.

jc: Yes, but those individuals declaring it so, do not possess any serious higher truth.

mj: But if we can say with absolute certainty that there is something in the world/universe that is definitely and objectively true, then that would in and of itself proves the world is logical.

jc: So, we need the examples from you. I’ve even offered possibilities, that you ignore.

mj: For truth is necessarily a part of logic.

jc: This statement is obviously false, once it is seen there are degrees of logic, humans occupying one of the lowest (reactionary, selfish). Logic to one, is illogic to another.

mj: If there is truth, then there is logic. You can't have one without the other.

jc: This is such simplistic reasoning! When everything looks black and white it’s a prime sign that discrimination, the ability to pierce situations with reasoning, is in short supply.

mj: The problem is that it is difficult to give a proposition about the world with enough detail to compel every reasonable being to admit it is true. Is this your objection?

jc: No, most can come to agreement about the basic material truths. Otherwise civilization is impossible. Yet when the ideas are examined there can be radical differences. An example is that a field or forest sparkles with beauty to one, but is merely some green things getting in the way of a bulldozer, to another. All do not see the same.

mj: For example, if I pose the proposition, "whatever goes up will come down", then this would have been considered true for most of human history. Except now we have the ability to escape the earth's gravity. So I suppose this proposition cannot always be considered true.

jc: Here you are verging on an example that I offered to you early on, for instance that atoms abide with certain properties. Yet such undeniable truths do not imply that logic is behind nature, or that nature is logical. It is as it is. It abides. It isn’t necessarily governed, unless of course you can prove God is behind it. Here’s your false abstraction, your mind rises to a taste of logic, then you turn to the world and insist that it must be a reflection.

mj: Or what if I say it is raining outside? This might be true for me but not true for you. And then someone might ask how do you define rain. Is it 10 drops of water every second in a square foot? Or maybe it's only 2 drops.

jc: This is a good example of where there is general agreement, for instance as people watch weather forecasts. Yet in citing your examples, you must show a connection to logic. The best I have from you is amazement chaos doesn’t descend as you close your eyes, but the general view even from materialists is that physical manifestations abide.

mj: However, it seems truth can always be specified exactly in the realm of mathematics. That some element is included in a set or not can be determined without ambiguity. But propositions about the world are not mathematically well defined, and we can always argue whether those are true or not.  Nevertheless, it does seem obvious that we can say some things about the world without ambiguity. For example, we can say one point of space is different from another point of space, each is described by different coordinates. And every objective and reasonable soul can agree that this is so. We may disagree on what coordinates to assign to each point, but we all agree that the two points are different. And for the same reason we can all agree that each person on earth is different from every other person, since they are separated in space.

jc: Now here you go too far, using the word “soul” when you don’t believe in a soul, and wouldn’t know what it was if you did believe. The word is in the dictionary,  but any definition is without substance. In general people mean “deep desire” when they use this word. What made you choose this word, instead of saying “men”? Are you religious?

You are citing here some examples like I was originally suggesting, but what is missing is any kind of cogent statements connection phenomena about which many agree, with logic as a ruler or ruling principle in nature. For instance about atoms we’d say it is atomic forces that rule, not logic. About rain it is meteorological forces and conditions. About different bodies, evolutionary principles. You haven’t shown how logic connects.

mj: And there you have it.

jc: You see something, but I don’t see it.

mj: If each point in space is different than other points in space, then we have an absolute truth, and a logical world follows because truth is part of logic.

jc: This is a bridge without girders. I wasn’t going along with you before as you insisted truth to be a part of logic, pointing out that truth and the logic behind it can vary between people. War was truth, and war was logical, to Hitler, for instance, and he insisted that was the only sane position. There are deeper problems with your proposition that somehow nature is following logical propositions, but this is an important one, that the logic by which men think is very seldom in agreement. So as you talk about logic you must specify that logic among humans turns chaos whenever we close our eyes, but you still intend for there to be some higher logic governing nature. And here is where you have no examples. I agree all points in space to be separate, but don’t see how it’s logical. The world exists as it is. Logic isn’t “out there” somewhere, with inputs and adjustments.

mj: Interestingly, this is where logictophysics.com starts, the logical conjunction of points in space leads to the derivation of physical laws as we know them today.

jc: I presume you have written to “lone wolf” by now, to give him enthusiastic support.

jc: Logic and knowledge are properties of an observing or self-considering mind. Without a mind, these are absent. No propositions appear, if no one is watching. Or, can you give even one example of what you mean? If there are no examples, I presume you are in a false abstraction, misled by language into thinking something is there that isn’t. Things exist, but they are not described. Without mind there is no “truth,” per se, only what-is.

mj: This is the same as saying that there is no objective truth.

jc: Truth exists in minds, isn’t a thing in itself. Truth is reality’s description. You can get truths where many minds agree, but still not all these minds are seeing the same truth. Reality is objective. The minds approaching reality vary in their power and knowledge.

mj: Instead, each mind has  its own subjective perception on what is true.

jc: This is so. It’s the very nature of personhood. Were logic really guiding nature, all minds would think alike, the logic would be the same, instead of wars breaking out.

mj: It is a postmodern philosophy which is self defeating.

jc: I don’t follow any of the philosophical schools. They’re all rather foolish.

mj: If there is no objective truth, then not even your statement is true that without minds there is no truth.

jc: It’s true for me, but not for you in the same way. For instance like all today, your idea about the mind and its source is bound to be primitive and incoherent. The truths that my mind establishes, are not the same as those your mind establishes, in any situation. Even when we say all points are separated, I’d ask if you can think holistically about the Earth.

The commonality that we would seek over this, is that you looking at minds from your perception of what a mind is, could generate that same sentence I generated, “without minds there is no truth.” But the truths we each experience in that instance are radically different. Language limits us to a similar appearance, but our logic isn’t really common.

mj: It also negates the correspondence principle that things in reality can be described by propositions that are true.

jc: You seem to be thinking only in a shallow material dimension, which is not atypical. In fact humans disagree about virtually everything, even where traffic signs belong until the government lays down the law. You can’t generate the propositions that all would agree to be true, or you’d be the one world ruler, one motive that guides human politics.

mj: And it denies that logic is relevant to any subject since logic only applies if reality can be described by propositions that are objectively true.

jc: Again, your argument is from a shallow material dimension, ignoring social realities. Logic does not bring order to human society, or the law books would not be so thick. Perhaps I have the logic that could save the world, but if no one can follow it, or even understand it, that logic is useless to save the world—though somewhat gratifying to me.

mj: But to entertain you for a moment, it seems you are asking what in reality is objectively a proposition that's either true or false.

jc: No. Your proposition is that logic is responsible for nature, I believe that God is. I’m not trying to make you a believer by any means, because I am also not a Christian or theist as that term has been used. My argument is that your proposition is not coherent.

mj: For it seems rocks in outer space do not state propositions. They may be described by propositions in our minds, but they are not propositions in and of themselves. They make no statements about themselves or about other things. So what in all the universe makes statements in and of themselves? Well, that of course would be human beings who make statements in the form of their words and their deeds. We are intentional creatures. Our minds are always busy thinking about ourselves and other things. We are constantly contriving statements in the form of memories and impressions and trying to find causal connections between them as we evaluate how events effect us and how we should behave to continue our existence. And the reason we even find value in knowing truth is because truth survives any attempt to negate it, and we want to survive as well. So we think that holding to the truth has some survival value. We love to claim that we are upholding truth and that we are entitled to honor and privileged status for doing so.

jc: Now you are arguing my side of things, failing to uphold that logic is doing it all.

mj: Would it help if there were a mathematical derivation of some theory that predicted entities that describe minds?

jc: It would help if you’d explain how those rocks in outer space could be driven by logic, as it seemed you were preparing to do, admitting they had none in themselves.

mj: Or would such a theory also only be in our minds and not in reality? In other words, does math and logic have any persuasive power in this discussion?

jc: This is something of the point, you’re insisting logic has made things as they are, but not explaining what that can mean. Did you derive such a theory, you’d need to show it exists in reality as a driver or ruler, and not just in the minds post hoc. Yet as you posit it is possible to do so, it may in fact be impossible, though you found “lone wolf” having such a theory about events at the quantum scale. In fact we can see it will be impossible, because of the myriad disagreements of man. If logic made men, why are they illogical?