I have to write about this because it was brought up in another thread.
I was asked in another thread:
(paraphrased) “Will the sun rise tomorrow?” Now this is highly relevant because…
Time changes truth, since all truth is a reflection of an event or events in a moment or moments in time. Therefore, every frame time moves forward, the truth is updated along with it at the exact same moment and all previous motions and positions in time are past, thereby those truths become solid. They are always true because that frame of time has past.
The idiocy of trying to predict future universals (i.e “for all time”) is that the way time functions makes it only possible statistically for many things, because all events in time are contingent events – that is they are determined by conditions or circumstances not yet established
So of course you’re not going to be able to get a universal statements out ones that bear the above or similar properties. The best you can get for such ones is statistical time-conditional truth, x is true as long as y doesn’t change or is moved tomorrow, etc.
If we were god and could see the timeline backward and forward before it all occured we wouldn’t need logic in the first place.
You know, I used to think that, but statistics is a remarkably powerful tool. It’s used to ‘prove’ things all the time to a certain degree of accuracy.
My example (and consequently the reason I started to actually trust statistics) is poker. A good poker player has many qualities, but one of the most important is putting money on the line when the odds are in your favor. This doesn’t mean when you have the best hand, but also when you have pot odds, implied odds…anyway, the proof that statistics can prove something is that people make money playing poker.
The trick is to take do the analysis over a statistically significant sample of data. Making 1000% of your principle investment one night on the poker table doesn’t say anything. Making a 10% return on your investment over a period of a year is.
You are a master escape artist, whenever someone shows you are wrong you make a stupid statement like that.
What do you think your question was all about when you asked it, it was about a FUTURE EVENT.
Logical arguments all exist in time every last fucking one, and I just showed that because of time you can only have provisional conditional statements, since every frame of time moves forward, the truth has changed.
If someone says
All ducks in my yard are black
therefore all ducks are black.
That statement is a universal, which has predictive element in it based on time.
Seriously, I guess science should give up all that knowledge about predicting the future from past observations, and all the statistically based scientific models. We might even argue that the whole of science is really statistical because knowledge and better tools are ever progressing and increasing and is therefore provisional.
Actually you’re wrong, because all events in time that have not happened yet are contingent events – that is they are determined by conditions or circumstances not yet established. And anyone who doesn’t believe the sun is coming up tomorrow based on past observations is safely, from a statistical standpoint, a nutcase.
Your mind works based on statistical probability models that it constructs, most (perhaps all) truth models are probabilistic statistically conditional truths, because time and geometry are changing every frame time moves forward. Value change → truth change → re assess. The only way you’d be able to make any kind of intelligent predictions is through statistical models.
I’m in the process of showing that “probabilities” are in fact partial existences, that are in fact real, and real numbers are actually made of partial “probability” parts. And if numbers are made of probability numbers, your argument is completely obliterated.
the laws of physics predict the future of nearly all phenomena to exterly high accuracy…quantum physics has never been wrong.
science is logical and based on evidence…
logic cannot predict everything only because t apply logic we would have to know the exact state of something which it impossible. This not a fault of logic but our inability to know the intial state of things to an infinte accuracy.
A deduction consist of premises that are previously accepted as true.
Deductive logic arrives at analytical truths only.
No new, or synthetic, knowledge has ever been derived from deduction.
This is extremely basic stuff. Please listen to Imp. What he is saying is in nowise controversial - it’s merely definitional.
You seem to be confounding logic with applied science. But even so, science relies upon observation - that is what the term “verification” means - to disprove a theory. But never to prove one. Theories are not proven - they are accepted as true. Quantum phisics has never been “right”, either.
Please educate yourself on this matter. It is not difficult to do so.
(uncountable) A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved. Logic is the basis of many principles including the scientific method.
But deductive logic is a subset of a higher always existing logic, else we couldn’t think. That is my point, and this idea is a work in progress I am working on but its very complicated, so it is not even close to finished.
That you know of, next concepts are the lenses by which we see the world. There was a revolution in natural philosophy which eventually became science because of arriving at the correct concepts and these concepts contain a logic, and a logical structure.
I don’t expect people to understand me because they simply cannot until I put a paper together and be explict and thorough, the statements I have made thus far are much too general. The truth of the matter is people here do not have the kind of understanding I do of computation and the developments going on in AI, so they are working from what they’ve been taught.
This statement is complete bullshit and based on reasoning that is much out of date. Your mind works by informatic logic. This is where philosophy majors really needs to start taking computer science courses and AI courses.
That statement is completely incoherent in the 21st century “What’s a habit? and what are habits made out of?”
