## Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

### Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Many of you know that Carleas and I have had some rather annoying long debates on a few issues, specifically:
2) Blued Eyed Problem
3) Logicians Meeting puzzle

It has dawned on me that in each case a historically common mistake is being displayed, the same mistake as Newton and a great many science philosophers ever since make, especially in pop-science (pseudoscience) that is being sold as real science throughout the Western world.

Newton heard about the idea of a "gravity force" (from Hooke I think it was). If the force called gravity was real, a certain reasoning would follow, a syllogism of logic, that would predict the behavior of the Moon and planets. He then made measurements to verify the reasoning. Because his measurements turned out to match the predictions from the reasoning that stemmed from the idea of a gravity force, it became scientific LAW that the effect of gravity was due to the "force of gravity". Most people today still believe in that "force of gravity" because "it is proven" and obvious.

But then later Einstein comes along and proposes the idea of Relativity. Einstein explains that the "force of gravity" supposedly reaching out to affect things at a distance doesn't really make much sense and what makes better sense is the idea that time and distance are merely relative to an observer. From that, the effect of gravity can be logically explained as a "warping of spacetime" rather than a "force of gravity". Again working out the logic, the syllogism, based upon the assumption of warping rather than forcing, a proposed "theory" (rather than "law") is formed. Measurements are made that verify that the warping is even more accurate than the forcing. Einstein takes the forefront being the genius and "Father of Modern Physics", putting Newton down.

In both cases, an assumption was made, logic was constructed, and measurements were made to confirm that the priori assumption was true. And in both cases, their assumptions turned out to actually be false. There is no gravity force, nether is spacetime warped, despite that obvious fact that there is a gravimetric effect.

That exact same kind of method is being used with those puzzles in our debates. Carleas begins with "if we assume that ... then make this syllogism ... then we get a result that solves the puzzle. The syllogism is unquestionably true. Therefore the assumption must have been true."

In the first minute of this video, that mistake is pointed out (the rest of the video isn't worth much as far as I can see):

That video spoke of the same issue -"just because your theory (assumptions and following logic) matches the puzzle constrictions doesn't mean that your theory is correct". At this time science has encountered enough of this such to be very aware. Thus they demand "falsifiability", requiring that nothing counter could possibly be true. And that is what I am requiring of Carleas in those puzzles, because I can already see possibly true counter theories to the ones Carleas and pop-science/pop-logic supports.

If P -> Q
Q
therefore P
Petitio Principii
Also known as "begging the question", a type of logic fallacy.

All I have been really doing is demanding that people be modern-day scientific in their thinking rather than older presumptuous scientific thinking. Pop science, including such notions as worm-holes, spacetime warping, time travel, the Big Bang, and so on are not true modern day falsifiable science. They are all merely fanciful conjectures, used to fascinate the general, naive public, and make distractive entertainment films for their presumed useless little minds.

Rational Metaphysics and its first born "Affectance Ontology" also demands that there be no assumptions that are not later logically proven to be unquestionable regardless of any following appearance of truth, and thus validated. The physical field called "affectance" cannot not exist, it is "falsifiable" through logical consequence (basically if affectance didn't exist, nothing at all could exist). Through empirical observations, the results of logical syllogisms can be, and have been, demonstrated to be accurate; the existence of subatomic particles, of atoms, of migration/gravitation effects, fixed speed of light in an absolute vacuum, particle attraction and repulsion effects, and so on.

Thus RM:AO is different in a very significant way than Newton or Einstein theories. RM:AO makes NO priori assumptions. And it then goes on to explain what was really happening that misled Newton, Einstein, and Western Science into their petitio principii (still largely happening).

And there is no actual distinction between good science and good logic other than one ends by saying "see!" in the physical sense rather than merely the mental sense. In logic puzzles, this same fallacy gets used and promoted throughout society as being "logical proof". I guess that makes it "Pop-Logic". It isn't bad enough that the word "logic" gets abused into merely meaning, "makes sense to me", but even the process of logic gets undermined such as to imply that truth and logic are separate things. When logic is properly formulated or presented, it is always 100% truth ... although the particular truth at hand might be irrelevant;

..might be true, but irrelevant.

"IF there existed a magic force,..."
"IF spacetime was warped,..."
"IF logicians use only the colors they see,..."
"IF the logicians first think of whether they have blues eyes,..."

.. all might be true, but irrelevant, because what IF something else was more accurate?

Petitio Principii = Pop-Logic, Pseudologic, amusing distractions for the "useless little minds of the general public".
Last edited by James S Saint on Sat Sep 12, 2015 12:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

James S Saint wrote:Many of you know that Carleas and I have had some rather annoying long debates on a few issues, specifically:
2) Blued Eyed Problem
3) Logicians Meeting puzzle

It has downed on me that in each case a historically common mistake is being displayed, the same mistake as Newton and a great many science philosophers ever since make, especially in pop-science (pseudoscience) that is being sold as real science throughout the Western world.

Newton heard about the idea of a "gravity force" (from Hooke I think it was). If the force called gravity was real, a certain reasoning would follow, a syllogism of logic, that would predict the behavior of the Moon and planets. He then made measurements to verify the reasoning. Because his measurements turned out to match the predictions from the reasoning that stemmed from the idea of a gravity force, it became scientific LAW that the effect of gravity was due to the "force of gravity". Most people today still believe in that "force of gravity" because "it is proven" and obvious.

But then later Einstein comes along and proposes the idea of Relativity. Einstein explains that the "force of gravity" supposedly reaching out to affect things at a distance doesn't really make much sense and what makes better sense is the idea that time and distance are merely relative to an observer. From that, the effect of gravity can be logically explained as a "warping of spacetime" rather than a "force of gravity". Again working out the logic, the syllogism, based upon the assumption of warping rather than forcing, a proposed "theory" (rather than "law") is formed. Measurements are made that verify that the warping is even more accurate than the forcing. Einstein takes the forefront being the genius and "Father of Modern Physics", putting Newton down.

In both cases, an assumption was made, logic was constructed, and measurements were made to confirm that the priori assumption was true. And in both cases, their assumptions turned out to actually be false. There is no gravity force, nether is spacetime warped, despite that obvious fact that there is a gravimetric effect.

That exact same kind of method is being used with those puzzles in our debates. Carleas begins with "if we assume that ... then make this syllogism ... then we get a result that solves the puzzle. The syllogism is unquestionably true. Therefore the assumption must have been true."

In the first minute of this video, that mistake is pointed out (the rest of the video isn't worth much as far as I can see):

That video spoke of the same issue -"just because your theory (assumptions and following logic) matches the puzzle constrictions doesn't mean that your theory is correct". At this time science has encountered enough of this such to be very aware. Thus they demand "falsifiability", requiring that nothing counter could possibly be true. And that is what I am requiring of Carleas in those puzzles, because I can already see possibly true counter theories to the ones Carleas and pop-science/pop-logic supports.

If P -> Q
Q
therefore P
Petitio Principii
Also known as "begging the question", a type of logic fallacy.

All I have been really doing is demanding that people be modern-day scientific in their thinking rather than older presumptuous scientific thinking. Pop science, including such notions as worm-holes, spacetime warping, time travel, the Big Bang, and so on are not true modern day falsifiable science. They are all merely fanciful conjectures, used to fascinate the general, naive public, and make distractive entertainment films for their presumed useless little minds.

Rational Metaphysics and its first born "Affectance Ontology" also demands that there be no assumptions that are not later logically proven to be unquestionable regardless of any following appearance of truth, and thus validated. The physical field called "affectance" cannot not exist, it is "falsifiable" through logical consequence (basically if affectance didn't exist, nothing at all could exist). Through empirical observations, the results of logical syllogisms can be, and have been, demonstrated to be accurate; the existence of subatomic particles, of atoms, of migration/gravitation effects, fixed speed of light in an absolute vacuum, particle attraction and repulsion effects, and so on.

Thus RM:AO is different in a very significant way than Newton or Einstein theories. RM:AO makes NO priori assumptions. And it then goes on to explain what was really happening that misled Newton, Einstein, and Western Science into their petitio principii (still largely happening).

And there is no actual distinction between good science and good logic other than one ends by saying "see!" in the physical sense rather than merely the mental sense. In logic puzzles, this same fallacy gets used and promoted throughout society as being "logical proof". I guess that makes it "Pop-Logic". It isn't bad enough that the word "logic" gets abused into merely meaning, "makes sense to me", but even the process of logic gets undermined such as to imply that truth and logic are separate things. When logic is properly formulated or presented, it is always 100% truth ... although the particular truth at hand might be irrelevant;

..might be true, but irrelevant.

"IF there existed a magic force,..."
"IF spacetime was warped,..."
"IF logicians use only the colors they see,..."
"IF the logicians first think of whether they have blues eyes,..."

.. all might be true, but irrelevant, because what IF something else was more accurate?

Petitio Principii = Pop-Logic, Pseudologic, amusing distractions for the "useless little minds of the general public".

This is a very good opening post.

Now the discussion can start.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

JUST TO START:

Kant wrote:Immanuel Kant
An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"
Königsberg, Prussia, 30th September, 1784.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts.

Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity. And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind. Thus only a few, by cultivating their own minds, have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity and in continuing boldly on their way.

Source: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/W ... enment.pdf .

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Arminius wrote:JUST TO START:

Kant wrote:Immanuel Kant
An Answer to the Question: "What is Enlightenment?"
Königsberg, Prussia, 30th September, 1784.

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large proportion of men, even when nature has long emancipated them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless gladly remain immature for life. For the same reasons, it is all too easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so convenient to be immature! If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me. The guardians who have kindly taken upon themselves the work of supervision will soon see to it that by far the largest part of mankind (including the entire fair sex) should consider the step forward to maturity not only as difficult but also as highly dangerous. Having first infatuated their domesticated animals, and carefully prevented the docile creatures from daring to take a single step without the leading-strings to which they are tied, they next show them the danger which threatens them if they try to walk unaided. Now this danger is not in fact so very great, for they would certainly learn to walk eventually after a few falls. But an example of this kind is intimidating, and usually frightens them off from further attempts.

Thus it is difficult for each separate individual to work his way out of the immaturity which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown fond of it and is really incapable for the time being of using his own understanding, because he was never allowed to make the attempt. Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity. And if anyone did throw them off, he would still be uncertain about jumping over even the narrowest of trenches, for he would be unaccustomed to free movement of this kind. Thus only a few, by cultivating their own minds, have succeeded in freeing themselves from immaturity and in continuing boldly on their way.

Source: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/W ... enment.pdf .

That actually deserves a thread of its own.

The sad thing to me is that I see all of that (largely agreeing) as being centuries ago. And yet "modern Man" seem to have never really swallowed it enough to get passed it. I don't really feel like it should be called "enlightenment" because it was only a spark. The truer light was never perceived. And now Man falls back into darkness with thing that go "bump" in the dark far, far greater than every before.

Maturity and immaturity comes in levels and types, each only slightly more enlightened than the one before.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

If P -> Q
Q
therefore P

That's called affirming the consequent.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein

statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard

Posts: 5414
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

James S Saint wrote:
2) Blued Eyed Problem
3) Logicians Meeting puzzle

It has dawned on me that in each case a historically common mistake is being displayed, the same mistake as Newton and a great many science philosophers ever since make, especially in pop-science (pseudoscience) that is being sold as real science throughout the Western world.

Newton heard about the idea of a "gravity force" (from Hooke I think it was). If the force called gravity was real, a certain reasoning would follow, a syllogism of logic, that would predict the behavior of the Moon and planets. He then made measurements to verify the reasoning. Because his measurements turned out to match the predictions from the reasoning that stemmed from the idea of a gravity force, it became scientific LAW that the effect of gravity was due to the "force of gravity". Most people today still believe in that "force of gravity" because "it is proven" and obvious.

But then later Einstein comes along and proposes the idea of Relativity. Einstein explains that the "force of gravity" supposedly reaching out to affect things at a distance doesn't really make much sense and what makes better sense is the idea that time and distance are merely relative to an observer. From that, the effect of gravity can be logically explained as a "warping of spacetime" rather than a "force of gravity". Again working out the logic, the syllogism, based upon the assumption of warping rather than forcing, a proposed "theory" (rather than "law") is formed. Measurements are made that verify that the warping is even more accurate than the forcing. Einstein takes the forefront being the genius and "Father of Modern Physics", putting Newton down.

In both cases, an assumption was made, logic was constructed, and measurements were made to confirm that the priori assumption was true. And in both cases, their assumptions turned out to actually be false. There is no gravity force, nether is spacetime warped, despite that obvious fact that there is a gravimetric effect.

That exact same kind of method is being used with those puzzles in our debates. Carleas begins with "if we assume that ... then make this syllogism ... then we get a result that solves the puzzle. The syllogism is unquestionably true. Therefore the assumption must have been true."

In the first minute of this video, that mistake is pointed out (the rest of the video isn't worth much as far as I can see):

That video spoke of the same issue -"just because your theory (assumptions and following logic) matches the puzzle constrictions doesn't mean that your theory is correct". At this time science has encountered enough of this such to be very aware. Thus they demand "falsifiability", requiring that nothing counter could possibly be true. And that is what I am requiring of Carleas in those puzzles, because I can already see possibly true counter theories to the ones Carleas and pop-science/pop-logic supports.

If P -> Q
Q
therefore P
Petitio Principii
Also known as "begging the question", a type of logic fallacy.

All I have been really doing is demanding that people be modern-day scientific in their thinking rather than older presumptuous scientific thinking. Pop science, including such notions as worm-holes, spacetime warping, time travel, the Big Bang, and so on are not true modern day falsifiable science. They are all merely fanciful conjectures, used to fascinate the general, naive public, and make distractive entertainment films for their presumed useless little minds.

Rational Metaphysics and its first born "Affectance Ontology" also demands that there be no assumptions that are not later logically proven to be unquestionable regardless of any following appearance of truth, and thus validated. The physical field called "affectance" cannot not exist, it is "falsifiable" through logical consequence (basically if affectance didn't exist, nothing at all could exist). Through empirical observations, the results of logical syllogisms can be, and have been, demonstrated to be accurate; the existence of subatomic particles, of atoms, of migration/gravitation effects, fixed speed of light in an absolute vacuum, particle attraction and repulsion effects, and so on.

Thus RM:AO is different in a very significant way than Newton or Einstein theories. RM:AO makes NO priori assumptions. And it then goes on to explain what was really happening that misled Newton, Einstein, and Western Science into their petitio principii (still largely happening).

And there is no actual distinction between good science and good logic other than one ends by saying "see!" in the physical sense rather than merely the mental sense. In logic puzzles, this same fallacy gets used and promoted throughout society as being "logical proof". I guess that makes it "Pop-Logic". It isn't bad enough that the word "logic" gets abused into merely meaning, "makes sense to me", but even the process of logic gets undermined such as to imply that truth and logic are separate things. When logic is properly formulated or presented, it is always 100% truth ... although the particular truth at hand might be irrelevant;

..might be true, but irrelevant.

"IF there existed a magic force,..."
"IF spacetime was warped,..."
"IF logicians use only the colors they see,..."
"IF the logicians first think of whether they have blues eyes,..."

.. all might be true, but irrelevant, because what IF something else was more accurate?

Petitio Principii = Pop-Logic, Pseudologic, amusing distractions for the "useless little minds of the general public".

If you are going to defame Robert Distinti's videos, then you could at least state what it is that he said that you either don't understand or don't agree with.

Just writing endless drivel won't get you anywhere.
Beware! The devil wears the mask of a saint.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Platospuppy1

Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:47 am
Location: Australia

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

So you do want to diacuss this? You sort of ditched me in that other thread. I'll dig the posts up later.

phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming

Posts: 4152
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

statiktech wrote:
If P -> Q
Q
therefore P

That's called affirming the consequent.

Although you are right, interestingly it can actually be both when the premise is in question.

"If the Sun is up (P), the sky is bright (Q)
The sky is bright (Q)
Therefore the Sun is up (Q -> P)"

That is "affirming the consequent" (a type of Non-sequitur fallacy).

And:
"If I assume a true premise, I achieve a solution.
I achieved a solution,
Therefore I assumed a true premise."
- "affirming the consequent"

Is the solution right? Well, IF the assumption is right, certainly. I got a solution, so the assumption must be right. - "affirming the consequent"

But then:
"I know that my premise is true because it led to a solution that would be true if my assumption was true". Of course it fails to examine if the assumption was ever true, thus "begging the question (of the assumption being true)", petitio principii fallacy (presuming the initial premise).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

James S Saint wrote:
statiktech wrote:
If P -> Q
Q
therefore P

That's called affirming the consequent.

Although you are right, interestingly it can actually be both when the premise is in question.

"If the Sun is up (P), the sky is bright (Q)
The sky is bright (Q)
Therefore the Sun is up (Q -> P)"

That is "affirming the consequent" (a type of Non-sequitur fallacy).

And:
"If I assume a true premise, I achieve a solution.
I achieved a solution,
Therefore I assumed a true premise."
- "affirming the consequent"

Is the solution right? Well, IF the assumption is right, certainly. I got a solution, so the assumption must be right. - "affirming the consequent"

But then:
"I know that my premise is true because it led to a solution that would be true if my assumption was true". Of course it fails to examine if the assumption was ever true, thus "begging the question (of the assumption being true)", petitio principii fallacy (presuming the initial premise).

As I alraedy said in the "Riddle"-thread:

Arminius wrote:One hint is (for example) that logic contains different types of implication.
=>#

Two examples:

1) There is one type (usually but also mistakably called material implication / conditional) that connects "p" and "q" to a new statement that is false if and only if the first part of the statement is true and the second part of the statement is false:

p | q | p -› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. t ..

The notation is " ¬ p v q ".

So the statement "if the Earth is a planet, then 2+2=3" is false according to this type of implication, whereas the statement "if 2+2=3, then the Earth is a planet" is true according to this type of implication.

2) There is another type (usually but also mistakably called logical implication / entailment) that is like this:

Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion: All S are P.

In this case "q" (conclusion) follows logically from "p" (major and minor premise) if each semantic interpretation of a language that makes "p" true makes automatically (just due to the logical form of "p" and "q") "q" true too.

The notation is " p ||— q ".

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Arminius wrote:1) There is one type (usually but also mistakably called material implication / conditional) that connects "p" and "q" to a new statement that is false if and only if the first part of the statement is true and the second part of the statement is false:

p | q | p -› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. t ..

The notation is " ¬ p v q ".

So the statement "if the Earth is a planet, then 2+2=3" is false according to this type of implication, whereas the statement "if 2+2=3, then the Earth is a planet" is true according to this type of implication.

Logic truth tables require that conditional statements be valid to begin with. You have to have a valid connection between p and q regardless of their truth status. You can't validly say:
"The statement, 'If a trees are blue, then rocks are yellow' is true."

The proposed statement is not logically valid (a non-sequitur. p has nothing to do with q), thus the truth status cannot be assessed at all.

Arminius wrote:2) There is another type (usually but also mistakably called logical implication / entailment) that is like this:

Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion: All S are P.

In this case "q" (conclusion) follows logically from "p" (major and minor premise) if each semantic interpretation of a language that makes "p" true makes automatically (just due to the logical form of "p" and "q") "q" true too.

The notation is " p ||— q ".

I don't understand your symbols in "p ||— q" and can't find any reference.
There is logical implication, "|—"
And there is semantic entailment, "|="
Either could apply depending on the exact nature of M, P, and S. If semantically S is implicit in M (eg M= all men. And S= small men), then the syllogism could be called a "semantic entailment".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:1) There is one type (usually but also mistakably called material implication / conditional) that connects "p" and "q" to a new statement that is false if and only if the first part of the statement is true and the second part of the statement is false:

p | q | p -› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. t ..

The notation is " ¬ p v q ".

So the statement "if the Earth is a planet, then 2+2=3" is false according to this type of implication, whereas the statement "if 2+2=3, then the Earth is a planet" is true according to this type of implication.

Logic truth tables require that conditional statements be valid to begin with. You have to have a valid connection between p and q regardless of their truth status. You can't validly say:
"The statement, 'If a trees are blue, then rocks are yellow' is true."

The proposed statement is not logically valid (a non-sequitur. p has nothing to do with q), thus the truth status cannot be assessed at all.

Is it also "not logically valid" when Wikipedia says that it is valid?

Wikipedia wrote:The truth table associated with the material conditional p→q is identical to that of ¬p∨q and is also denoted by Cpq. It is as follows:

p | q | p -› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. f ..
=>#

So again:

p | q | p -› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. t ..

The notation is " ¬ p v q ".

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:2) There is another type (usually but also mistakably called logical implication / entailment) that is like this:

Major premise: All M are P.
Minor premise: All S are M.
Conclusion: All S are P.

In this case "q" (conclusion) follows logically from "p" (major and minor premise) if each semantic interpretation of a language that makes "p" true makes automatically (just due to the logical form of "p" and "q") "q" true too.

The notation is " p ||— q ".

I don't understand your symbols in "p ||— q" and can't find any reference.
There is logical implication, "|—"
And there is semantic entailment, "|="
Either could apply depending on the exact nature of M, P, and S. If semantically S is implicit in M (eg M= all men. And S= small men), then the syllogism could be called a "semantic entailment".

Yes. And the symbol " ||— " is also mentioned in the ASCII code, and could be interpreted as a mix of " |— " and " |= ". The symbol " ||— " is more used in linguistics than in logic itself but it is a logical symbol as well (of course - duh!).

One of my points was - by the way - that it could be probable that the types of implications you and Carleas were refering to in the said discussion were different.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Arminius wrote:Is it also "not logically valid" when Wikipedia says that it is valid?

Certainly.
Wiki making a claim merely means that there is someone else who believes the claim. Wiki has many incorrect articles (and changes them quite frequently).

For centuries people accepted that logic was inherently flawed because a person could say, "This statement is false" and create what appeared to be a logic paradox. They were setup for that trick by first being told how ALL statements are either true or false. The real truth was, is, and always will be that not all statements are rational or logically valid statements and such statements have nothing to do with being true or false, and thus nothing to do with truth tables.

The "material conditional" is allowed to be irrational and thus the truth table is meaningless (and yes, I don't care what Wiki might say about it). It is declared that the following statement is "true":

"If apples are blue, then bicycles are boats."

Is that a true statement in your mind? Does the conditional truly qualify the consequent? No it doesn't. It is a non-sequitur. And in fact, the statement:

"If apples are red, then bicycles have two wheels"

..also is not a true statement, even though both the conditional and the consequent are in themselves true. The fact is that the statement asserted a qualifying connection between the color of apples and the condition of bicycles and that is simply not a true connection. The statement is false in this case due to the falsity of that asserted connection.

Publishing a truth table or math equation doesn't impress me. What they are calling a "material conditional" is simply not a logically valid form for a truth table to have meaning. They use it in math wherein nothing actually has meaning and you can have imaginary numbers, irrational numbers, and various other nonsense.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

I have not quoted Wikipedia, because I absolutely believe in it. I wanted to show that both examples I gave are well-known. When I wrote about them in this thread the first time (here) I did not refer to Wikipedia or whatever or whomever.

Again: The truth table associated with the material conditional p→q is well-known.

Arminius wrote:
Wikipedia wrote:The truth table associated with the material conditional p→q is identical to that of ¬p∨q and is also denoted by Cpq. It is as follows:

p | q | p -› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. f ..
=>#

So again:

p | q | p -› q
t | t | .. t ..
t | f | .. f ..
f | t | .. t ..
f | f | .. t ..

The notation is " ¬ p v q ".

The material conditional (also known as "material implication", "material consequence", or simply "implication", "implies" or "conditional") is a logical connective (or a binary operator) that is often symbolized by a forward arrow "→". The material conditional is used to form statements of the form "p→q" (termed a conditional statement) which is read as "if p then q" or "p only if q" and conventionally compared to the English construction "If...then...". But unlike the English construction, the material conditional statement "p→q" does not specify a causal relationship between p and q and is to be understood to mean "if p is true, then q is also true" such that the statement "p→q" is false only when p is true and q is false. Intuitively, consider that a given p being true and q being false would prove an "if p is true, q is always also true" statement false, even when the "if p then q" does not represent a causal relationship between p and q. Instead, the statement describes p and q as each only being true when the other is true, and makes no claims that p causes q. However, note that such a general and informal way of thinking about the material conditional is not always acceptable, as will be discussed. As such, the material conditional is also to be distinguished from logical consequence.

Venn diagram of A → B.
If a member of the set described by this diagram (the red areas) is a member of A, it is in the intersection of A and B, and it therefore is also in B.

Arminius wrote:One of my points was - by the way - that it could be probable that the types of implications you and Carleas were refering to in the said discussion were different.

Do you now know what I mean?

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Arminius wrote:
"if p is true, then q is also true"
.
.
However, note that such a general and informal way of thinking about the material conditional is not always acceptable

Those are the only relevant statements. It directly connects and implies dependence of q to p and clues you into the fact that the truth table does NOT always apply.

I stated, "If apples are blue,..." as my "p"
and then ".. then bicycles are boats" as my " -> q"

In reality, there is no connection or dependence between the color of apples and the condition of bicycles. The statement is in the form of "p -> p". But the statement is a non-sequitur. The fact that apples are not really blue plus the fact that bicycles are not boats does NOT dictate that the statement requiring their dependence be true. It is certainly not true, because it is asserting a dependence that is not there.

The truth tables for "p -> q" only apply if the overall assertion is true.

Else, you are agreeing that if apples become blue, then bicycles WILL become boats. If Wiki tells you that they will, are you going to believe them?

When the overall statement is true, the truth table applies in order to state that if the p condition is no longer present and the consequence q is no longer present, then the statement p -> q is still a true statement (assuming that it was true to begin with). And the Venn diagram is irrelevant.

Arminius wrote:One of my points was - by the way - that it could be probable that the types of implications you and Carleas were referring to in the said discussion were different.

Not really. I know what he is trying to say and I know what he is avoiding (because prior discussions have very seriously revealed his effort to avoid it).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Interesting post. I have run up against this kind of thing often with science groupies. Confusions about models vs. observations/result data amongst other confusions.

You explain the idea contrasting Newton and Einstein in reference to gravity being a force, and yes, people still believe this, though scientists know better, now, at least, most of the physicists. Do you have something that shows that gravity is also not the warping of space? IOW as Einstein's gravity model is to Newton's gravity model, we have X's model (or something other than a model) to Einstein's model of gravity.

Moreno
ILP Legend

Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Moreno wrote: Do you have something that shows that gravity is also not the warping of space? IOW as Einstein's gravity model is to Newton's gravity model, we have X's model (or something other than a model) to Einstein's model of gravity.

That is what I have been babbling about for the past 5 years. Affectance Ontology, a necessarily true ontology construct, explains that gravity is an aberrant particle migration effect due to ambient affectance field absorption. Affectance is the stuff of which the "gravity field" is made. Mass particles are constantly absorbing and disseminating the affectance of which they are made into and out of that field. The field and the particles are made of the same substance. When the affectance is a little more dense on one side of the particles than the other, the particles inadvertently migrate toward that higher density.

A mass particle is merely a concentrated traffic jam of affectance (ultra-minuscule EMR pulses). And just like any traffic jam, the material of its composition comes and goes while the jam remains more steadfast. And if there is more coming from one direction than the opposite, the jam itself floats or migrates toward that direction. And that is the logically undeniable (in the long run) cause of the gravitational effect.

Magical forces and bending of space are not required at all to understand exactly why masses "attract"/"aggregate".

The One Field – Affectance

The following is a thesis concerning the physical field called "Affectance" void of the extensive logical and mathematical proofs and experimental evidence involved in substantiating the assertions mentioned. Before getting into the far more detailed and rigid substantiation of the truth of what is being asserted, it is important to understand the scope of what is being asserted.

Affectance
The two primary fields spoken of in contemporary physics are the electromagnetic and the gravitational. Thus far, these have been accepted as fundamental fields that determine the behavior of all physicality. And as fundamental fields, no explanation is offered as to their make or composition. I propose, with very serious certainty, that both of these fields as well as all forms of mass are actually composed of the same more fundamental substance, Affectance.

Affectance is the physical substance from which all physicality is formed. It can be apply described in more contemporary terms as a field of ultra-minuscule to infinitesimal electromagnetic pulses with varied degrees of random directionality. Such affectance fills literally all space and is the make of all mass, light, EMR, and gravitational fields. And in fact, without such affectance, there could be no space or mass at all.

What we call "empty space" is in fact never actually fully empty – never. Much like the speculated aether field, the affectance field fills literally all space from the most infinitesimal to the most infinite. It is impossible for space to exist void of being filled completely with affectance. And the proposed "aether field" was actually affectance, merely misunderstood.

The proposed aether field was defined long ago as a substance acting as the medium within which all particles and EMR travel. But the actual affectance field is not such a separate medium for other things to travel through. The affectance field has merely greater and lesser concentrations from the extremely thin, called "space", to the extremely concentrated, called "mass particles" or simply "mass". In fact, one could properly refer to mass as merely "concentrated or extremely dense space".

The density of affectance ranges from 0 to 1 ad ("affectance-density"), or from 0% to 100% adp, wherein the idealized asymptotes, 0 and 1, cannot actually ever manifest but represent absolute zero density and absolute pure, maximum density. The gravitational field, or "mass field", is the typical gradient spread of affectance from the highest possible affectance density at the center of a mass particle (normalized to 1 ad), following a normalized Lorentzian distribution,

ad = 1 / (1 + (x² + y² + z²) ,

to the extreme distant and minimum density of open space. And it is the natural behavior of affectance that causes the aberrant effect that we refer to as "gravity".

The distinction between the composition of the gravitational field and electromagnetic field is formed merely by the degree of directional randomness of the infinitesimal EMR pulses that make up the affectance field. When there is a high degree of directional randomness of the pulses, a gravitational field, or "mass field", is formed. When there is a much lower degree of directional randomness, an electromagnetic field, EMR wave, or light photon is formed.

The Composition of Mass
There are merely two essential behaviors of affectance that by consequence yield the entire range of all physical properties; when ultra-minuscule EMR pulses (tiny portions of affectance) cross each other's path, they add to each other's density [1] and they also retard each other' propagation. The combination of these properties forms what is mislabeled as an "attraction system" wherein concentrations of affectance grow exponentially to a maximum, forming a highly dense mass particle and maintaining that particle's size even though the pulses are constantly coming and going through that tiny concentrated bit of space, the particle.

It is important to understand that a mass particle is merely a spot in the affectance field, or space, that is sharply more concentrated than the rest of the field. The particle is not a separate substance or object from the space around it other than merely being of greater density than the ambient surroundings. The particle does not "emit a gravitational field" as is so often taught. It would actually be more appropriate to say that the gravitational field forms the mass particle. If the field was removed, the particle would dissipate as if to completely vanish as its more internal affectance randomly and undetectably dispersed.

That concept is important when considering how mass particles move, why they move as they do, and what happens to the gravitational field as they are moving.

The Motion of Mass
When the affectance is uniformly flowing into and out of a mass particle in all directions, the particle will not be moving (relative to the observer). And the only way to get it to move is to alter that condition.

There are only two ways to cause a (neutrally charged) mass particle to begin to move; imbalance the density of the ambient affectance field and/or bias the average direction of the ambient field's flow.

Gravitation
When the ambient field surrounding a mass particle is not fully symmetric, the amount of affectance flowing in and out of the particle on one side will be greater than on the opposite side. Because the particle is merely somewhat of a traffic jam of such flowing, the epicenter of the particle will shift toward the greater density. Such shifting or migrating yields the impression of a small solid object, the particle, being attracted toward the greater density. And that migrating is more commonly known as "gravitating".

When two mass particles are in close proximity, each is surrounded by a more dense affectance field than open space. And between the two particles the affectance density adds, much like having two crowds of dancing people close to each other, the space between will have a greater density than the space outside.

The fact that the affectance density is higher between the two particles is what causes them to begin migrating toward each other. There is no force pushing or pulling at a distance as proposed by Newton, nor is space "bent" as proposed by Einstein. If anything, one could claim that space is more concentrated surrounding and between the particles, meaning that the affectance of which space is made is more dense surrounding the particles.

And of course as the particles become closer, the field between them becomes even more asymmetrically dense, thus they naturally migrate faster. Their insistence on migrating is what yields the impression that there is a mystical force involved, know as "gravitational force", reaching out and pulling the particles together.

What is commonly called "gravitational force" would be more appropriately referred to as the "Attractive Migration". Masses are not being pulled together, nor pushed together, but rather merely migrate closer to which ever direction represents the more dense affectance of the ambient space.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

James S Saint wrote:
Moreno wrote: Do you have something that shows that gravity is also not the warping of space? IOW as Einstein's gravity model is to Newton's gravity model, we have X's model (or something other than a model) to Einstein's model of gravity.

That is what I have been babbling about for the past 5 years. Affectance Ontology, a necessarily true ontology construct, explains that gravity is an aberrant particle migration effect due to ambient affectance field absorption. Affectance is the stuff of which the "gravity field" is made. Mass particles are constantly absorbing and disseminating the affectance of which they are made into and out of that field. The field and the particles are made of the same substance. When the affectance is a little more dense on one side of the particles than the other, the particles inadvertently migrate toward that higher density.

A mass particle is merely a concentrated traffic jam of affectance (ultra-minuscule EMR pulses). And just like any traffic jam, the material of its composition comes and goes while the jam remains more steadfast. And if there is more coming from one direction than the opposite, the jam itself floats or migrates toward that direction. And that is the logically undeniable (in the long run) cause of the gravitational effect.

Magical forces and bending of space are not required at all to understand exactly why masses "attract"/"aggregate".

The One Field – Affectance

The following is a thesis concerning the physical field called "Affectance" void of the extensive logical and mathematical proofs and experimental evidence involved in substantiating the assertions mentioned. Before getting into the far more detailed and rigid substantiation of the truth of what is being asserted, it is important to understand the scope of what is being asserted.

Affectance
The two primary fields spoken of in contemporary physics are the electromagnetic and the gravitational. Thus far, these have been accepted as fundamental fields that determine the behavior of all physicality. And as fundamental fields, no explanation is offered as to their make or composition. I propose, with very serious certainty, that both of these fields as well as all forms of mass are actually composed of the same more fundamental substance, Affectance.

Affectance is the physical substance from which all physicality is formed. It can be apply described in more contemporary terms as a field of ultra-minuscule to infinitesimal electromagnetic pulses with varied degrees of random directionality. Such affectance fills literally all space and is the make of all mass, light, EMR, and gravitational fields. And in fact, without such affectance, there could be no space or mass at all.

What we call "empty space" is in fact never actually fully empty – never. Much like the speculated aether field, the affectance field fills literally all space from the most infinitesimal to the most infinite. It is impossible for space to exist void of being filled completely with affectance. And the proposed "aether field" was actually affectance, merely misunderstood.

The proposed aether field was defined long ago as a substance acting as the medium within which all particles and EMR travel. But the actual affectance field is not such a separate medium for other things to travel through. The affectance field has merely greater and lesser concentrations from the extremely thin, called "space", to the extremely concentrated, called "mass particles" or simply "mass". In fact, one could properly refer to mass as merely "concentrated or extremely dense space".

The density of affectance ranges from 0 to 1 ad ("affectance-density"), or from 0% to 100% adp, wherein the idealized asymptotes, 0 and 1, cannot actually ever manifest but represent absolute zero density and absolute pure, maximum density. The gravitational field, or "mass field", is the typical gradient spread of affectance from the highest possible affectance density at the center of a mass particle (normalized to 1 ad), following a normalized Lorentzian distribution,

ad = 1 / (1 + (x² + y² + z²) ,

to the extreme distant and minimum density of open space. And it is the natural behavior of affectance that causes the aberrant effect that we refer to as "gravity".

The distinction between the composition of the gravitational field and electromagnetic field is formed merely by the degree of directional randomness of the infinitesimal EMR pulses that make up the affectance field. When there is a high degree of directional randomness of the pulses, a gravitational field, or "mass field", is formed. When there is a much lower degree of directional randomness, an electromagnetic field, EMR wave, or light photon is formed.

The Composition of Mass
There are merely two essential behaviors of affectance that by consequence yield the entire range of all physical properties; when ultra-minuscule EMR pulses (tiny portions of affectance) cross each other's path, they add to each other's density [1] and they also retard each other' propagation. The combination of these properties forms what is mislabeled as an "attraction system" wherein concentrations of affectance grow exponentially to a maximum, forming a highly dense mass particle and maintaining that particle's size even though the pulses are constantly coming and going through that tiny concentrated bit of space, the particle.

It is important to understand that a mass particle is merely a spot in the affectance field, or space, that is sharply more concentrated than the rest of the field. The particle is not a separate substance or object from the space around it other than merely being of greater density than the ambient surroundings. The particle does not "emit a gravitational field" as is so often taught. It would actually be more appropriate to say that the gravitational field forms the mass particle. If the field was removed, the particle would dissipate as if to completely vanish as its more internal affectance randomly and undetectably dispersed.

That concept is important when considering how mass particles move, why they move as they do, and what happens to the gravitational field as they are moving.

The Motion of Mass
When the affectance is uniformly flowing into and out of a mass particle in all directions, the particle will not be moving (relative to the observer). And the only way to get it to move is to alter that condition.

There are only two ways to cause a (neutrally charged) mass particle to begin to move; imbalance the density of the ambient affectance field and/or bias the average direction of the ambient field's flow.

Gravitation
When the ambient field surrounding a mass particle is not fully symmetric, the amount of affectance flowing in and out of the particle on one side will be greater than on the opposite side. Because the particle is merely somewhat of a traffic jam of such flowing, the epicenter of the particle will shift toward the greater density. Such shifting or migrating yields the impression of a small solid object, the particle, being attracted toward the greater density. And that migrating is more commonly known as "gravitating".

When two mass particles are in close proximity, each is surrounded by a more dense affectance field than open space. And between the two particles the affectance density adds, much like having two crowds of dancing people close to each other, the space between will have a greater density than the space outside.

The fact that the affectance density is higher between the two particles is what causes them to begin migrating toward each other. There is no force pushing or pulling at a distance as proposed by Newton, nor is space "bent" as proposed by Einstein. If anything, one could claim that space is more concentrated surrounding and between the particles, meaning that the affectance of which space is made is more dense surrounding the particles.

And of course as the particles become closer, the field between them becomes even more asymmetrically dense, thus they naturally migrate faster. Their insistence on migrating is what yields the impression that there is a mystical force involved, know as "gravitational force", reaching out and pulling the particles together.

What is commonly called "gravitational force" would be more appropriately referred to as the "Attractive Migration". Masses are not being pulled together, nor pushed together, but rather merely migrate closer to which ever direction represents the more dense affectance of the ambient space.

Thanks for the reply. I will do my best to understand this. With Einstein's model, as you also said, measurements fit better. Has this happened with this model? I do understand that if it is not being taken seriously by those with money taking the measurements is out of reach, but are their measurements or something else that already supports this. And I also understand that if the answer is in the negative this does not mean the model is wrong.

Moreno
ILP Legend

Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Moreno wrote:Thanks for the reply. I will do my best to understand this. With Einstein's model, as you also said, measurements fit better. Has this happened with this model? I do understand that if it is not being taken seriously by those with money taking the measurements is out of reach, but are their measurements or something else that already supports this. And I also understand that if the answer is in the negative this does not mean the model is wrong.

The types of measurements that have been done so far are not the type to which people are accustomed. I started off being more concerned for accuracy than anyone I have met since. To most people, almost all, it is good enough if it sounds probably right based upon other beliefs. That is not good enough for me. I had to know that there was no possibility at all of the theory being wrong. That took a while, but I got it there.

So the first measure of accuracy was one of ontological consistency. Was there anything inherently contradictory in the fundamental principles? I made certain that there wasn't, but then I still had to get that verified (as a part of RM procedure). You have seen a part of that on this forum as people attempt to find something wrong with the theory; "What about this.... What about that...." And of course, they did so as enemies, not hopeful friends trying to make me feel good (makes an important difference).

But before the concepts were revealed on this site, I had already built and programmed a computer to operate using those principles to see where it would lead. That took quite a lot to accomplish but in the long run, the computer, not being told anything more than the principles, automatically produced what later was confirmed to be sub-atomic particles which behaved exactly as concurrent physics observes electrons, positrons, and neutrinos behaving. There was "mass attraction", "polarity", "charge attraction" and so on even though none of those were programmed to occur. Merely the emulation of the fundamental principles (the manner in which affectance treats itself) was enough to cause the formation of the essential particles and fields (gravitation and charge) necessary for our entire universe to spring forth.

So the consistency of the logic was first verified by a computer that could do nothing but be consistent, even better than I could. And then the next concern is one of comprehensiveness. Does the ontology found the entire diverse range of behavior throughout the universe while remaining consistent and coherent? The automatic production of the fundamental sub-atomic particles took care of that concern very quickly. The only issue was one of being certain that literally all known particles and materials were made from those principles. That took more specialized examination and detailed logic/math. But in the long run, that too worked out. There has been nothing observed in Science that RM:AO can't explain while remaining pretty simple and totally coherent, including the things that Science can't yet explain (as Eugene Morrow discovered).

So the measure that has been made most significantly at this point isn't about meters and seconds (AO doesn't even use those units), but rather it has been a measure of coherent comprehensiveness with mathematical and logical support. And beyond that, verification measures by a range of people trying to find something lacking in it (especially in the face of super strong support, religious support, for Relativity and QM). RM:AO doesn't need anything magical, warping of space, dilating of time, forces reaching out over long distances, multiuniverses, parallel universes, higher mystery dimensions, backward time functions, something from nothing, or any such ridiculous extremes proposed as "modern science"

At this point, RM:AO has actually been verified to a greater degree than any other theory, although it takes a serious philosopher to realize that. What would be required to convince most people in science would be if I could find something predictable by RM:AO that wasn't as accurately predictable using other means. I have little doubt that I could do that, but that would require the participation of public science figures (not available to me).

And beyond even all of that, even if RM:AO was 100% proven to every scientist, it would be years, if not decades, before any of you heard anything about it. You live in a world of military secrecy that extends well into all education, especially science and religion.

So ... bottom line, you have to look at every detail of the logic yourself, compare it with science observation data, (not pop-science theories). Most of it is well within the range of the average person to be able to verify the logic if they bother to have any confidence in themselves (not so easy to find) and merely discuss it with other logic oriented people. In the long run, there are no questions left, no room for deception, no corner for the Devil to hide in. The "theory" really isn't a "theory" any more. It is fact, although using different concepts in a few places than are common today.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

If "gravity force" and "spacetime warping" are unproven and even unprovable, then they are arguments for unproven premises, thus examples of the petitio principii, possibly also of a proton pseudos or even of a proton kinun (lat.: primum movens), and this means that they are proof errors, thus: they are logically false.

Arminius
ILP Legend

Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

The problem I have with AO is that it prescribes a 'field-ness' as an a-priori coherence; it operates on a presumed analytical guarantee.

This is what "Affectance" means: the assumption that physical causality is uniformly consistent, i.e. that "existence" in its totality is a coherent field.

Now this may be the case, but that is not known for a fact. Nor could it ever be established as such.

So the OPs criticism of Newton and Einstein applies doubly to the OPs proposal. The logic is born of assumed terms, the terms arent born from pure logic.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
-
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 11065
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Fixed Cross wrote:The problem I have with AO is that it prescribes a 'field-ness' as an a-priori coherence; it operates on a presumed analytical guarantee.

This is what "Affectance" means: the assumption that physical causality is uniformly consistent, i.e. that "existence" in its totality is a coherent field.

Now this may be the case, but that is not known for a fact. Nor could it ever be established as such.

So the OPs criticism of Newton and Einstein applies doubly to the OPs proposal. The logic is born of assumed terms, the terms arent born from pure logic.

You wish...
.. but wrong.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

James S Saint wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:The problem I have with AO is that it prescribes a 'field-ness' as an a-priori coherence; it operates on a presumed analytical guarantee.

This is what "Affectance" means: the assumption that physical causality is uniformly consistent, i.e. that "existence" in its totality is a coherent field.

Now this may be the case, but that is not known for a fact. Nor could it ever be established as such.

So the OPs criticism of Newton and Einstein applies doubly to the OPs proposal. The logic is born of assumed terms, the terms arent born from pure logic.

You wish...

That tells you something.... presuming that I prefer theories to be faulty.

In my world, a correct theory is a thing of beauty.

.. but wrong.

Unfortunately, it is you who is wrong here.

In the end AO collapses under a basic flaw. No parameters for quality, no accounting for particulars: a theory that only works in general, where there is nothing actual.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
-
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 11065
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

And if someone is not childishly guided by only his passions, he knows to explicate the premises of his arguments, void of blind presumption:
Fixed Cross wrote: it prescribes a 'field-ness' as an a-priori coherence

You would do well to ask before you accuse.
... in everything you accuse.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

One doesn't "accuse" 1+1 of equaling 2.

Illustrative of the problem of AO: lack of relevant terms. (I mean relevance to life, not to AO.)
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
-
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 11065
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: Petitio Principii, If P -> Q

Are you going to defend your accusation or merely keep attempting to bicker and prattle?

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend

Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Next