philosophical foundation of mathematics

[Eric]

If something exists, it can not also not exist.
If something does not exist, it can not also exist.

This is no less than Aristotle's "first principle of logic", which is still in place today.

I have already stated my logic in pragmatic terms. You have not stated your objection in pragmatic terms. All you've done so far, is TRY to make me look like a fool and to TRY to take credit for my logic.

It's the ultimate case of irony.

Absolutely nothing does not exist. The problem with you trying to take credit for this statement, is that you can't follow up with a logical trail that shows how all other things do exist.

Am I going to lay that logical trail out for you? Of course not. You have not given me one reason to bother and every reason to not.

"Casting pearls before swine" is not productive.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Eric, I will repost here what I answered to your other post, today. I have no desire to make a fool of you, or take any credit for what has been, IMO, settled thought for years. Logic is very fallible___it's fallibility is decided by frail or strong human inferrences plugged into it. The sea you are wading in is best understood by thoroughly understanding ergodicity___nothing to do with god... And, if you were to take the time to read all my, Dave's, Guille's, HBD's, Mr. Nobody's and other's posts, over the last year, you'd see it's all in there. Nothing you are, thus far, stating has not already been covered by I or others, on this board... You just have to make your scientific points more logically clear and thorough___close all the loopholes... Believe it or not Eric, I am sincerely interested in your scientific thoughts about any infinity connections to the finite, false axioms of math and science, and any new scientific additions to this board's ideas, or the additions to the existing body of world knowledge... Please, don't feel put upon___I am only stating the scientific positions, which just most often happen to be in opposition to the unscientific reasoning... I am not here to prove anything about science___I am only trying to add to the vast thought processes, within the bounds of science, restating those science positions___and hoping a proof will fall out. That's all I see any of us are doing... Welcome to the quest...

The Fallible Human Mind/Ego/Soul of Logic

Again Eric, you offer no deffinition of this, otherwise, mythical logic. You know, it seems everyone wants to assume their own perfection and completeness of understanding of ideas, when in fact all ideas and minds are truly incomplete___being itself___is incomplete___yet most speak from an ego as if it possessed complete omega knowledge and wisdom___I think this point quite important. Let's just say that possibly, the mind at omega point may be able to achieve such complete intelligence, how, and I stress how, would one develop the dialogue and language necessary to reach the world's diversity of minds? Is it even possible? I think the key would be in accepting, with humility, the absolute incompleteness of one's own being's knowledge, and the deffinitions of what is considered knowledge and or wisdom, to different groups. Now, we know from this site, that metaphysics and science are on opposing sides, quite often, not even counting the vast differences of spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists. Is there a solution to these mind/ego/soul differences...?

Now, I know there is a solution to these differences, but I don't know a way of getting the truths across to varrying global points of views. All I can do is state my views, from the science side of philosophy and physics. Let me just point out that when anyone uses logic, it has different rules of use for all the opposing world points of view. It was Husserl who first recognized the different rules between scientific and psychological logics___he showed where they had opposite sets of rules. Others have shown also that music and comedy opperate on totally opposite logic functions than science, and of course, we well know the differences between spiritists and scientists, etc... Now, what exactly are these differences...? The scientist will say logic must function according to the established rules and laws of the historical use of philosophic and physical logic, as established by Aristotle on, i.e., A is A, A is B, and B is not not B, and the excluded middle, etc.. Since Aristotle, we have further increased the branches of logic to some 138 categories and 9 classes, functioning on varrying agreements and dis-agreements with the founding rules. On the other side of the fence are the psycholigists, metaphysicists, spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists, etc. who insist on a further undefined set of private language logics, as first described by Wittgenstien___and he also stated, it doesn't exist. Now, we really have quite a mix of mush to make sense of___where do we start...?

Let me again just state science's position. In order for logic to function toward facts and factually provable truths, only real objects can be inferred into the otherwise fallible human logic, due to the fact that if opinion is allowed to be inferred into logic, all that is possible for logic to return is opinion. This does not mean the scientist can not use theory to find fact. It only means that the final logic must only have real objects inferred into logic to return absolute facts, and nor is it possible for any subjective realities to be inferred into logic, with an outcome of absolute facts___subjective inferrences will always return nothing but unprovable opinions.

The human mind/ego/soul is too fallible, as most will use their ego, polluted by the infinity problem of soul capacity, to pollute the mind's final positions___this is just as often true of science, as of religion, etc. So, herein lies the problem, as I see it___The human mind/ego/soul itself___being___is too fallible to be trusted, without verifiable objective facts of observation, to back up logic, to create any absolute facts of any realities.

Now, for a moment, just look at the other side. Let's take the most violating of science and logic___religion. They most all believe in an infallible soul, yet the soul can be exaggerated to any powers of delusions, especially the more emotional it becomes. These exaggerations, when added to the mind, only enhance the mythical power of the ego, and do not add to any true logic. These are absolutely subjective states of opinions, when inferred into logic, and can only produce more opinions. This isn't to say that opinions can not become facts, as they often do, but not until purified by the realities of the absolutely objective world. This isn't to say emotions aren't real and can't be studied, as they are scientifically cognitively studied all the time, but it's through a massive historical database of objective observational case studies, which I may add, are usually ignored by the opinionists, lacking these and other scientific logical objective facts.

True logic only works factually true with absolute objective objects inferred in, first___always___period... Any other type of logic, is polluted by, quite often, false opinion... This has been the trouble and reason that metaphysics has been truly unable to enhance the study of being beyond its feeble state of incompleteness___being is absolutely scientifically incomplete... We must get off our big egos and recognize this fact...

Regards,
Lloyd

[Eric]

What is an absolute object?

"The Fallible Human Mind/Ego/Soul of Logic", is one that can choose to take the risk of letting go, when faced with a limitation. Who's to say what is not discoverable?

"Where do we start?"

Since there is no "nothing", we define a SOMETHING without making an assumption.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

What is an absolute object? [You...]

"The Fallible Human Mind/Ego/Soul of Logic", is one that can choose to take the risk of letting go, when faced with a limitation. Who's to say what is not discoverable? [Say something Eric___this is just platitudes to research___science is far beyond this...]

"Where do we start?" [Verifiable facts.]

Since there is no "nothing", we define a SOMETHING without making an assumption. [An apple is an apple, Eric. True science makes no assumptions, Eric___you, falsely, just think it does... It works within possible, provable and probable measurements___anything else is mythology...]

Where's your something object, to infer into logic, Eric?

regards,