Well, you can look over my posts, but I haven't stated that there was a proof.
Common logic proposes non-contradiction, and light can be examined as waves, and in other experiments as particles. It has two ontologies...
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But I'm still waiting for the name of this philosopher who logically proved that there are no black swans in nature. I'm still waiting for an example where logic and reality contradict one another.
Popper knew that induction is not a logical proof, not that logical proofs are unreliable.
Well, you can look over my posts, but I haven't stated that there was a proof.
Except, y'know, it doesn't.Common logic proposes non-contradiction, and light can be examined as waves, and in other experiments as particles. It has two ontologies...
Yes, but in your opinion, wave-particle duality is illogicalHe used logical induction to construct what he called a valid scientific hypothesis. In my oppinion we need less of those...
Post #10: "A philosopher of the past said that there are no black swans, his logic was fine, but he was completely wrong, because there were black swans in Australia when he said that..."
Or, to put it another way, you explicitly stated that an as yet unnamed philosopher gave a valid and sound logical proof that no black swans exist.
Except, y'know, it doesn't.
Yes, but in your opinion, wave-particle duality is illogical.
Such as? You did state "A philosopher... said that there are no black swans, his logic was fine, but he was completely wrong". In what other way could you have possibly meant this, except that a philosopher (who has yet to be named) gave a logical proof (which has yet to be cited) refuting the existence of black swans?Earth to Wiccan Child.... Come in... Wiccan Child... come in...
Do you really know what explicit statements are? You have been making some explicit statements, which don't seem to be based on the facts in my posts.
And yet, instead of refuting my points in a calm and civil manner, you resort to insults and ridicule. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.I think you are lost in a logical never-never land, where you have dreams of all of the non-existent things, that your logic writes proofs about...
Such as? You did state "A philosopher... said that there are no black swans, his logic was fine, but he was completely wrong". In what other way could you have possibly meant this, except that a philosopher (who has yet to be named) gave a logical proof (which has yet to be cited) refuting the existence of black swans?
I saw the quote, but it does not fit the "he said there were no black swans, his logic was fine" bill: Popper was using it as an example of an obviously logical argument that obviously wasn't fine. He was demonstrating a logical fallacy by way of example, not providing a logical disproof of black swans.The philosopher was Karl Popper. You should read my posts more carefully.
I saw the quote, but it does not fit the "he said there were no black swans, his logic was fine" bill: Popper was using it as an example of an obviously logical argument that obviously wasn't fine. He was demonstrating a logical fallacy by way of example, not providing a logical disproof of black swans.
I also said "And if this mystery philosopher never gave a proof, in what way was his logic "fine"?" Since you ignored that question too, I can only assume that you are indeed talking about a proof.You have been using the word proof, not me...
I also said "And if this mystery philosopher never gave a proof, in what way was his logic "fine"?" Since you ignored that question too, I can only assume that you are indeed talking about a proof.
To be fair, I have asked you to clarify at least twice now.never assume, it makes an ass out of u and me...
To be fair, I have asked you to clarify at least twice now.
Why you said his logic was fine, when his whole point was that it was a logical fallacy.What don't you understand?
First it was 'fine logic' to conclude that no black swans exist, now it's just a hypothesis. Which?I have told all I know about Karl Popper and his valid scientific hypothesis.
Logical proofs are about determining for certain whether a given statement is true or not. There is no reason why we cannot in principle determine whether something could exist or not. For instance, we can use logic to conclude that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, or deduce the existence of things given various premises.Anyone who studies logic knows that logic does not prove existence or non-existence, that's not what logical proofs are about.
Logical proofs are about determining for certain whether a given statement is true or not. There is no reason why we cannot in principle determine whether something could exist or not. For instance, we can use logic to conclude that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, or deduce the existence of things given various premises.
He was using deliberately flawed logic to highlight the limits of induction. You are the one who stated that this logic was "fine", and you were the one who insisted that logic can contradict reality.Karl Popper's hypothesis was correct in his little world, they had found no black swans. He wasn't using logic to say that there were black swans, with no evidence of any black swans.
I'm not the one who says that logic contradicts reality, or has any say over it.Perhaps you would like to propose that there are purple swans using your special magical metaphysical logic, and we'll wait and see what happens with the swans...
I'm not the one who says that logic contradicts reality, or has any say over it.
Let's not forget what we were talking about in the first place: you claiming that various consequences of quantum mechanics are 'illogical' (a claim you have yet to support, I might add).
Because if something is illogical (is inconsistent, paradoxical, etc), it canot be true.Why is it so important to you that quantum effects are logical?
No, it only means that there are two mathematical models of mechanics which do not predict the same thing. One of those models makes far more accurate predictions than the other.What logic are you pointing to? Quantum mechanics can be called a kind of logic, but it does contradict any extention of Newtonian mechanics. The idea that there are two logical systems that describe cosmology makes the whole proposition that logic reigns supreme empty rhetoric.
Indeed, but we can use logic to deduce conclusions that you may find counter-intuitive or hard to grasp. Wave-particle duality, for instance...Obviously as knowledge expands we will have to be inspired to discover new premises and new logics to follow them.
Where do premises originate? They certainly are not deduced from logic...
Because if something is illogical (is inconsistent, paradoxical, etc), it canot be true.
Indeed, but we can use logic to deduce conclusions that you may find counter-intuitive or hard to grasp. Wave-particle duality, for instance...
Depends on what you mean by "there are", but ultimately no paradox is true. That's almost the definitionWell, there definitely are paradoxes, which truly are paradoxes....
Historically, yes. But my point is that one can take the postulates of modern quantum mechanical theory and use logic to derive wave-particle duality.I am sorry no, logic did not predict wave particle duality. It was observed first in experiments, and the theory had to be modified and developed to accomodate the reality.
Using mathematics to make predictions is the very essence of scientific experimentation. Ever heard of the Higgs Boson? Black holes? To say we don't have the ability to predict the existence of something, or the value of some experimental result... well, I don't know where to begin.Matematical logic very rarely predicts the existence of anything which is unknown to observers and experimenters. There was a notable exception to this rule. It was discovered by a mathematician that Einsteins work predicted the existence of singularities, and Einstein became the mad scientist of the Cosmological Constant....
Using mathematics to make predictions is the very essence of scientific experimentation. Ever heard of the Higgs Boson? Black holes? To say we don't have the ability to predict the existence of something, or the value of some experimental result... well, I don't know where to begin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?