How do we KNOW knowledge?

[Oncedeceived]

P: If I remove a hair from someone with a full head of hair, they still have a full head of hair.

Is P true or false? According to you, it has to be one or the other.

If logic is [FONT=arial,]unambiguous and precise there will always be a true or false. It is[FONT=arial,] only when you bring in such devices as the one above that have no truth val[FONT=arial,]ue in "full head of hair" that logic seems to diverge from the law. It "seems" to or appears to but in reality the statement can't be [FONT=arial,]qu[FONT=arial,]an[FONT=arial,]tifi[FONT=arial,]ed in truth values to make a clear d[FONT=arial,]emar[FONT=arial,]cation or boun[FONT=arial,]d[FONT=arial,]ary[FONT=arial,] to determine its trut[FONT=arial,]h or falseness.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[essentialsaltes]

in reality the statement can't be quantified in truth values

Excellent. Then we agree it is not true that "all statements are either true or false". The 'head of hair' statement can't be quantified in terms of binary true and false.

So the axiom of bivalence is not universally true.

Therefore, if we go back to your definitions of axiom:

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. a proposition in logic or mathematics that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.


Definition #1: we have just shown that the principle of bivalence is not always true, therefore it cannot be a self-evident truth (since it is not a truth).
Definition #2: It is not universally accepted. Indeed, we see that Aristotle himself rejected it in cases similar to the 'head of hair example'. Other philosophers and logicians have built logical systems that reject it.

Therefore, the only relevant definition is again, #3.

The principles of logic are chosen (and assumed without proof) in order to analyze a particular problem. If we want to talk about "All men are mortal" or "No bachelor is married", then the axiom of bivalence is useful.
When we talk about heads of hair, then the multivalent logics are a better way to analyze the problem.

We choose the proper tool for a particular job. There is no one universal, innate, tool of logic. There are many logics. Human beings choose particular sets of axioms to address particular problems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

OD,

I am a tad out of practice at this, but are you referring to the principle which was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in Principia Mathematica?*

---
* Principia mathematica, by Alfred North Whitehead ... and Bertrand Russell. pp. 116 - 117

I am stating what everyone has as the basic foundation for knowledge or acquiring knowledge. There are formal logics, mathematical logics and so forth but none of these are possible without the basic building blocks of the law of logic.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Mathematics is based in conceptual symbolism reflecting the reality of the conceptual nature of reality.

Concepts are ideas, thunk up in people's heads. Reality is not made of concepts.

Are you claiming that mathematics has no rules or laws then?

Mathematics has many different sets of rules. The Peano Axioms are one set of rules by which you can play mathematics. It is not the only one. Euclid's axioms are another set. The axioms of non-Euclidean geometry are another set. They give different results. Because we choose them to address different problems.

Numerical symbolism for time is the numerical numbers given for the 24 hour period given to a day. Time is the reality that the "clock arithmetic" the symbol for it.

[Discussion of velocity addition in Relativity]

So?

When you add apples you use the addition as defined by ordinary arithmetic.
When you add hours, you use the addition as defined by modular arithmetic.
When you add velocities, you use the addition as defined by special relativity.

There is no one 'addition'. There are many, each based on different assumptions. Some assumptions are better for different problems, and we use different axioms because some are better at describing what we see. These numbers and axioms are not 'out there' in the world. They are our way of describing the world.

Could have anyone else but Pythagoras discovered it?

Of course. The Babylonians knew it before Pythagoras was born. Now answer the question:

Is the Pythagorean Theorem true or false, with respect to reality?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I am stating what everyone has as the basic foundation for knowledge or acquiring knowledge. There are formal logics, mathematical logics and so forth but none of these are possible without the basic building blocks of the law of logic.

So, are you or are you not referring to the principle which was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in Principia Mathematica?*

---
* Principia mathematica, by Alfred North Whitehead ... and Bertrand Russell. pp. 116 - 117

 

[Kylie]

Kylie,

Science does not yet have the software to encounter our essence en theos

Way to just assume that you are right.

Maybe it is religion that doesn't have the evidence to encounter our essence en scientifique.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, it is important to contemplate. But the fact remains that it is irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Now please move on from it.

I disagree. I think it is very relevant to the fact that without the uniformity and laws of the universe we could not acquire knowledge and know we have it.

You are trying to claim that we need to understand why the universe has the laws it does in order to study why it has the laws it does. Circular reasoning. Stop it.

No I'm not. I am saying that without the uniformity of the universe we could know nothing.

But you are insisting that we apply it to one very specific situation - why the laws of the universe are the way they are. There are a great number of things that we can know without needing to know why the laws are the way they are.

No, I am not saying that we need to know WHY the laws are the way they are to learn, I am saying it must be the way it is to learn. I am asking you why you don't ask why personally.

You mean Newton's theory of gravity? But it was never right. It was only ever "close enough". Your watch doesn't keep accurate time. But when it loses only five minutes a year, we can claim it is "close enough".

Are you claiming that the scientists of that time didn't think it was correct and was only close enough?

So since this does not count as an example of a scientific theory which gave ACCURATE information despite being wrong, would you care to try again?

It certainly didn't give false information or it wouldn't have been considered at all.

Again, no. It has not been verified yet, so at the moment it is just a very exciting idea which may be correct. I am not aware of anyone saying that string theory is correct.

Hm. I will have to look that up and see if that is a correct assessment.

You can assume that it was measurable, testable and verifiable evidence.

So when a fossil is found and it is determined to be a certain age, verified and it is determined on that evidence the life form existed at a certain time frame for the first time and then later found much much earlier than thought possible is this not measurable, testable and verifiable conclusions that were proven false? Take the bee, it was thought to evolve along with flowers. Now they know that bees or wasps were present 110 to 210 million years earlier.

ANd suhc people are basing their conclusions on logical fallacies. Sure, a parent COULD say, "I vaccinated my child, and shortly afterwards, they were diagnosed as autistic!"

Right, well let's not get side tracked on something outside of the discussion.

No it isn't.

Firstly you said: "The truth exists DUE TO the reason and logic we are equipped with." You said DUE TO. That means AS A RESULT OF. You are directly claiming that the truth exists due to the fact that we have logic and reason. You are specifically claiming that one thing causing another thing. Our possession of reason and logic is causing there to be truth according to this claim.

You misunderstood me then. The truth exists whether or not we exist or not, and that has been my point all along.

Then you turn around and state that things can be true whether we are here with our reason and logic or not.

The two claims are in direct opposition. It's as if you first claimed that water boils due to it being heated, and then claiming that water would boil whether we heated it or not.

I think the opposition is in your misunderstanding what I wrote.

I agree. Are you retracting your earlier claim that truth exists DUE TO the fact that we have reason and logic?

I didn't make that claim.

It is arrogance to think that truth is DUE TO some quality of humanity, as this implies that humanity is required for the truth to exist.

I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, are you or are you not referring to the principle which was stated as a theorem of propositional logic by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead in Principia Mathematica?*

---
* Principia mathematica, by Alfred North Whitehead ... and Bertrand Russell. pp. 116 - 117

I have a very annoying computer and it won't download the pages. So I have no idea. I've not read this.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Way to just assume that you are right.

Maybe it is religion that doesn't have the evidence to encounter our essence en scientifique.

Perhaps one day we shall map all the tiny stuff as well as the massive stuff, but still not a single drop can equal the blood of Christ. Though I hear they tested the shroud until it's worthless. Such wonderful clues we have been given, some right before our eyes but still we will not to see.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I have a very annoying computer and it won't download the pages. So I have no idea. I've not read this.

Oh, I know the feeling. I am working off an android, which cannot manage big downloads but you could probably accomplish it at an Internet Cafe.
You can read Volume 1 - 3 online at INTERNET ARCHIVE:

Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, I know the feeling. I am working off an android, which cannot manage big downloads but you could probably accomplish it at an Internet Cafe.
You can read Volume 1 - 3 online at INTERNET ARCHIVE:

Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3

Thanks.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Thanks.

 

[Kylie]

Perhaps one day we shall map all the tiny stuff as well as the massive stuff, but still not a single drop can equal the blood of Christ. Though I hear they tested the shroud until it's worthless. Such wonderful clues we have been given, some right before our eyes but still we will not to see.

And the shroud was revealed to be a medieval product. It's not real.

What was I saying about people who continue to believe something once it has been shown to be false? Perhaps they do it because their beliefs are so ingrained that they can't bring themselves to change it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And the shroud was revealed to be a medieval product. It's not real.

Source?

Here is mine.

Did an earthquake in Old Jerusalem cause the Shroud of Turin to be dated incorrectly? | Daily Mail Online

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

And the shroud was revealed to be a medieval product. It's not real.

What was I saying about people who continue to believe something once it has been shown to be false? Perhaps they do it because their beliefs are so ingrained that they can't bring themselves to change it.

He is our Father Kylie.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Source?

Here is mine.

Did an earthquake in Old Jerusalem cause the Shroud of Turin to be dated incorrectly? | Daily Mail Online

Really?

"An Italian team at the Politecnico di Torino, a well respected Italian University, claims the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake, which occurred in Old Jerusalem in the year 33 AD, would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock."

Crushing rocks releases neutrons?
There was an 8.2 earthquake in Jerusalem?
This affected the shroud, but not other artifacts from Jerusalem?

This does not even pass the smell test.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really?

"An Italian team at the Politecnico di Torino, a well respected Italian University, claims the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake, which occurred in Old Jerusalem in the year 33 AD, would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock."

Crushing rocks releases neutrons?

Yes.

There was an 8.2 earthquake in Jerusalem?

There was an earthquake but the magnitude I am not sure about.

This affected the shroud, but not other artifacts from Jerusalem?

Were there other fabrics to test?

This does not even pass the smell test.

Perhaps.

Yet, confirmed on or around the date that Jesus was said to be crucified there was an earthquake and an eclipse in Jerusalem.

 

[Kylie]

He is our Father Kylie.

Make all the unsupported claims you wan't because without evidence to back them up, they are meaningless.

 

[Kylie]

Source?

Here is mine.

Did an earthquake in Old Jerusalem cause the Shroud of Turin to be dated incorrectly? | Daily Mail Online

A rebuttal to your source: Neutrinos MAY be capable of altering the amount of radioactive decay used for Carbon 14 testing, but only in very small amounts [SOURCE]. There is no way they can make a 2000 year old artifact look to be 700-800 years old.

Debunking The Shroud: Made by Human Hands

Also:

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

In any case, if the shroud is a genuine image of ANY person wrapped in the cloth, why does it not have the image of the top of his head? The only way it could possibly work is if it was draped over the top of a cardboard cutout.

The Shroud is not real.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Were there other fabrics to test?

There was a 1st century shroud dated with radiocarbon dating.

"From a long-sealed cave tomb, archaeologists have excavated the only known Jesus-era burial shroud in Jerusalem, a new study says.
...
The tight seal apparently allowed the shroud—radiocarbon-dated to between A.D. 1 and 50—to survive the high humidity levels characteristic of Jerusalem-area caves."

Yet, confirmed on or around the date that Jesus was said to be crucified there was an earthquake

Confirmed how?

and an eclipse in Jerusalem.

Which one of these was that eclipse?

None of the 4 in 33-34 AD were visible in Jerusalem.