These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Intergalactic Summit

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Meditation on: Religion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#81 - 2013-01-02 21:59:34 UTC
Scherezad wrote:
I wasn't presenting a formal or strict definition of the inductive form, ma'am. I was casually presenting the primary example of the inductive form, in the formation of the natural numbers. I apologize for my lack of rigour; please allow me to re-present the example.

P1) The natural number 0 exists.
P2) Natural numbers are reflexive.
P3) Natural numbers are symmetric.
P4) Natural numbers are transitive.
P5) Natural numbers are closed under equality.
P6) Every natural number n has a successor, S(n).
P7) For every natural number n, S(n) is not zero.
P8) The successor function is injective.

C1) The natural numbers are an infinite set.

From here we then use induction to demonstrate that this is a complete set. If you will allow me the use of second order logic, I will formulate the argument as:

I1) If N exists and is a set such that:
I2) 0 is in N, and
I3) For every natural number n, if n is in N, then its successor S(n)is also in N,

c2) N consists of all of the natural numbers; i.e. no natural numbers exist outside of N.

Do you accept that the above is valid argument? If so, you accept second-order induction as valid in logical proofing. If not, there are dire effects for mathematics.

Cpt. Scherezad!

Of course I accept that as a valid deductive argument for demonstrating N. That's because I accept the axioms of mathematics as well deductive reasoning.

My concern was never that those are not valid: In fact the aim was to defend those notions against the implication that something can only be reasonably accepted if it is proven by logic and reasoning. As neither the axioms of mathematics nor deductive reasoning itself are proven by logical reasoning, but rather provide the starting points for it, I pointed out that such a requirement would on the one hand indeed be apt to rule out theism, but in the same breath would undermine the foundations of logical reasoning itself, thus the requirement is a self-defeating one and indeed would obliterate mathematics as well.

As such, requiring logical proof of the divine to accept faith in it as a reasonable alternative is quite the destructive requirement for anyone valuing logic, rationality and reason. It is, in fact, an irrational requirement, by necessity.

And even though my forte is more in the philosophical question of logics, that is in meta-logical considerations - and even there I'm no real expert, it's nice to see someone being well versed in that field, no matter that it's the non-philosophical, mathematical department of this most splendid discipline which is the via regia to rule out a large chunk of those propositions that are untrue.


Cpt.. Farel,

As to your defense of me, it is certainly not natural science that I'm employing here, so if one denies formal logic the status of a science, one can claim that my arguments are unscientific. Of course, the scientific method is in great calamities if one considers the thorough application of logic to science as a 'crime'. Still, I appreciate the gesture. My thanks.

Faithfully,
N. Mitha
Aldrith Shutaq
Atash e Sarum Vanguard
#82 - 2013-01-02 22:26:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Aldrith Shutaq
von Khan wrote:
Put aside what is worthless reclaim your virtue and learn of your own dignity...


Dogs barking at each other in the language of 'logical' argument and rehtoric are still dogs barking. One last time I will advise people to put aside this worthless debate, reclaim their virtue, and learn of their own dignity by not sullying my fellow pilot's message with this verbal fencing match. I admit, it has reached a certain level of flamboyant complexity that even I can appreciate, but in the end it's all rather futile.

How about we talk about not being selfish? I think that's something we can all get behind.

Aldrith Ter'neth Shutaq Newelle

Fleet Captain of the Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris

Divine Commodore of the 24th Imperial Crusade

Lord Consort of Lady Mitara Newelle, Champion of House Sarum and Holder of Damnidios Para'nashu
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2013-01-02 22:34:28 UTC
Maire Gheren wrote:
Fey Ivory wrote:
All faithfull Amarrians beleave in God
Miss Mithra is a faithfull Amarrian
Therefor: Miss Mithra beleave in God

But then you have to ask whether your arguments hold up. "All" is hard sometimes.. So is "Is". Plus, there are a lot of arguments that look reasonable, but wash away when they get wet. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few of those up there.

What directs the flow of your actions?


The debate have been about deductive reasoning, so i took a look at this protocol for reasoning, and tried to make a simple reasoning that fell within the rules, as to see if it holds up, its rather irrelevant if it do, whats relevant is to further your understanding and knowledge, it is a interesting protocol none the less, but i find it as contra productive and narrow minded, in the end, it shouldent be about how you deliver the message, but whats in the message
Maire Gheren
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2013-01-02 22:50:57 UTC
Fey Ivory wrote:
it shouldent be about how you deliver the message, but whats in the message
Then what, pray we, is in your message, Ms. Ivory?
Are you wanting to argue against caring about the well-being of others, as well? Or for it?
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-01-02 23:08:13 UTC
Maire Gheren wrote:
Fey Ivory wrote:
it shouldent be about how you deliver the message, but whats in the message
Then what, pray we, is in your message, Ms. Ivory?
Are you wanting to argue against caring about the well-being of others, as well? Or for it?


As for your first question, earlier i stated "In my short years, i have not yet learnt the protocols of Deductive reasoning, but iwe given it a few thoughts" its a example of deductive reasoning, since Miss Mithra, were asking for one, so i provided one, although limited in my knowledge of this protocol

as for your second question, i beleave that humanity have a beutifull mind, that is often blinded by her own rigid laws... The deversity that exist is something that broadens her understanding, knowledge and should be cared for
Maire Gheren
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#86 - 2013-01-02 23:17:43 UTC
Fey Ivory wrote:
as for your second question, i beleave that humanity have a beutifull mind, that is often blinded by her own rigid laws... The deversity that exist is something that broadens her understanding, knowledge and should be cared for
Laws are to control bad people. Faith and piety is to teach people how to be good, so that they don't need to be controlled by the laws.
Fey Ivory
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#87 - 2013-01-02 23:32:20 UTC
Miss Gheren

Whos laws ?... and as for teaching people how to be good, now thats a rather interesting statement, depending on whos wievs you hold, some in Eden would claim the Amarrians is bad couse of certain ways... And the Amarrians see some as bad couse of their ways, what if both are right in their own way ?... what if there is more then one solution to a problem ?... earlier i made a thought experiment about good and evil, i ask Miss Gheren to read that ower
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#88 - 2013-01-03 00:23:53 UTC
Aldrith Shutaq wrote:
von Khan wrote:
Put aside what is worthless reclaim your virtue and learn of your own dignity...


Dogs barking at each other in the language of 'logical' argument and rehoric are still dogs barking. One last time I will advise people to put aside this worthless debate, reclaim their virtue, and learn of their own dignity by not sullying my fellow pilot's message with this verbal fencing match. I admit, it has reached a certain level of flamboyant complexity that even I can appreciate, but in the end it's all rather futile.

How about we talk about not being selfish? I think that's something we can all get behind.



How about you stop selfishly telling people to shut up about a conversation they want to have and that you don't have to listen to, then?

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Maire Gheren
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2013-01-03 00:33:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Maire Gheren
I think that most people will agree on which way the people on the ends should go, but I dont think you will see any agreement on the order. We can try to make sure that there is some agreed on ways of deciding how acts should be ordered, and this is the culture we gain through faith, rather than relying on the free democratic universality of sand purple soybean boing boing octopus.
Stitcher
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#90 - 2013-01-03 00:44:04 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
My concern was never that those are not valid: In fact the aim was to defend those notions against the implication that something can only be reasonably accepted if it is proven by logic and reasoning.


Let me get this straight... you're expecting there to be some means other than reason to demonstrate that something is reasonable?

You are aware of what the word "reasonable" means, right? "Amenable to reason"? If something is not demonstrable with reason then it is, by definition, unreasonable to accept it.

AKA Hambone

Author of The Deathworlders
Aldrith Shutaq
Atash e Sarum Vanguard
#91 - 2013-01-03 00:53:49 UTC
Well, I tried.

Have fun everyone.

Aldrith Ter'neth Shutaq Newelle

Fleet Captain of the Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris

Divine Commodore of the 24th Imperial Crusade

Lord Consort of Lady Mitara Newelle, Champion of House Sarum and Holder of Damnidios Para'nashu
Scherezad
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
#92 - 2013-01-03 02:14:58 UTC
Nicoletta Mithra wrote:
Cpt. Scherezad!

Of course I accept that as a valid deductive argument for demonstrating N. That's because I accept the axioms of mathematics as well deductive reasoning.

My concern was never that those are not valid: In fact the aim was to defend those notions against the implication that something can only be reasonably accepted if it is proven by logic and reasoning. As neither the axioms of mathematics nor deductive reasoning itself are proven by logical reasoning, but rather provide the starting points for it, I pointed out that such a requirement would on the one hand indeed be apt to rule out theism, but in the same breath would undermine the foundations of logical reasoning itself, thus the requirement is a self-defeating one and indeed would obliterate mathematics as well.

As such, requiring logical proof of the divine to accept faith in it as a reasonable alternative is quite the destructive requirement for anyone valuing logic, rationality and reason. It is, in fact, an irrational requirement, by necessity.

And even though my forte is more in the philosophical question of logics, that is in meta-logical considerations - and even there I'm no real expert, it's nice to see someone being well versed in that field, no matter that it's the non-philosophical, mathematical department of this most splendid discipline which is the via regia to rule out a large chunk of those propositions that are untrue.


Captain Mithra;

I apologize deeply for the distress. When I had spotted your request for a reasonable demonstration of the use of inductive proofing, I had thought that this argument would suffice. It is in fact considered the fundamental inductive proof. I understand now that you don't see this as a valid demonstration of a reasonable inductive argument, but I can't entirely see why. When I made the statement it was not for the purposes of undermining your beliefs or for directing your discussion in any direction - my interest was only in supplying the requested example.

Your expansion shows that your interest is more in the axiomatic nature of the fundament, however. I won't intervene on your discussion deeply, but will only say that when constructing the set of axioms, it is important that the set be sparse and contain only those axioms which are neccesary and sufficient for the operation of the system. Any beyond this set would render it a non-partition. If you'll allow me to think on your position a bit more, I'll post again later with a better reply.

You will have to excuse my lack of knowledge of philosophy or the differences between philosophical and mathematical induction - I am led to believe that they are not the same? In any case, while interesting, I find philosophy mostly useful in mental training and not in generating useful answers to problems. Philosophy must yield to science as does theory to experiment. I do admire the formality and deep history of the practice, however.
Nicoletta Mithra
Societas Imperialis Sceptri Coronaeque
Khimi Harar
#93 - 2013-01-03 20:26:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicoletta Mithra
As a media res, between falling silent on matters of reason to appreciate the moral force and beauty of my fellow Praetorians word and drowning out the force and beauty of those words to do justice to the reason and truth of those very same words, I decided to extract the tedious arguments and logical proofs into another thread.