No offense intended. I was merely pointing out that logic systems
stand on doctrinal grounds rather than logic.
That argument itself is inherently problematic. Instead, I want
>to fall back on my previous argument (I think this was before you
walked
>in) that IF an objective reality exists, then acting as if it doesn't
or
>presuming false things to be true to any degree will ultimately be bad
for
>us; that is, that adhering to falsehood is directly opposed to our own
>self interests.
>
> The fact that
>the cat in the box is, to some extent, dead and not dead simultaneously
>does NOT mean that all things are and are not true; the diffraction of
>light on a screen is not ambiguous in any way. The behavior of photons
>may be weird, and may be truly random, but there are certain behaviors
>which you will never see and which quantum mechanics predicts can never
>happen.
>
>> It's one of the defining characteristics of bivalent logic, and it's
>> philosophical child, logical atomism. I do not believe that
historical
>> precedence is sufficient reason to declare all other systems of logic
to
>> be impossible or immoral. All that is necesary for a system of logic
to
>> be valid is that true conclusions follow from true premises, which
fuzzy
>> logic satisifies.
>Listen to what you're saying! "True conclusions from true premises..."
>Not conclusions which are true to some degree from true premises, but
TRUE
>conclusions. Again, I'll buy your logic as an approximation of the
real
>truth, but not your fuzzy truth.
As usual, I have fallen into the linguistic trap of using assumptions
which my reader will not have. I should have said 'conclusions true to
a specified degree follow from premises true to a specified degree.' I
know this is not the textbook definition of logic, but the textbooks are
based on Aristotle, after all. I imagine you will not agree with this
definition either, but I am beginning to see a way out of our
definitional difficulties, but I will restrict them to the original
Tarsky post.
>> You have caught me. I am a mystic. In fact, I am a Jungian
>> psychologist.;)
>
>Hah! Gotcha. I have a nose for these things. :)
>
>Depends on which idea you're referring to. That the brain is a quantum
>computer? This is not unbelievable, a priori, but once you get down to
>the evidence, we will ultimately find out if the brain is a quantum
>computer. Science, even QM, always wants to boil down to truth
>or falsehood.
>
I am not trying to support fuzzy truth in this post, merely speculating
on the spread of mysticism.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com