Do greenhouses have windows?

[Deleted1205226User]

I believe that logic is a capacity of the mind, among others, very well developed in human mind (well, more in some than others) but also in action in other animal's mind.

 

There's a field of mathematics that is the pure and extreme expression of it.

 

Language embraces logic, but extend it, corrupt it and goes beyond.

[dpgillam]

Probably not.

 

Most greenhouses are run or owned by hippies.

Most hippies hate Microsoft. (considered an evil large super-corporation)

Therefore, most greenhouses probably have MAC.

Edited May 19, 2015 by dpgillam

[HeyYou]

Probably not.

 

Most greenhouses are run or owned by hippies.

Most hippies hate Microsoft. (considered an evil large super-corporation)

Therefore, most greenhouses probably have MAC.

:laugh:

 

Now THAT was funny. :)

 

Thank You.

[Daedthr]

 

Probably not.

 

Most greenhouses are run or owned by hippies.

Most hippies hate Microsoft. (considered an evil large super-corporation)

Therefore, most greenhouses probably have MAC.

:laugh:

 

Now THAT was funny. :smile:

 

Thank You.

 

 

Yah but I wouldn't like to have a computer in a greenhouse because all the surfaces for it would be covered in soil lol. :D

 

May as well put the MAC somewhere decent because it probably cost more than the greenhouse did.

[Daedthr]

I believe that logic is a capacity of the mind, among others, very well developed in human mind (well, more in some than others) but also in action in other animal's mind.

 

There's a field of mathematics that is the pure and extreme expression of it.

 

Language embraces logic, but extend it, corrupt it and goes beyond.

 

To me I think logic is the art of making assumptions that are likely to the point they are certain.

 

I mean, in the case of mathematics, when trying to prove the axiom "n + 0 = n" Bertrand Russell and his colleague (I can't remember his name now) came to the conclusion that there comes a point even in mathematics where something must be accepted based on pure logic, and to me it seems that pure logic is simply assumptions that we consider certain.

 

For instance the idea that something cannot come from nothing seems logical to us, because if it could there is no reason why things should not be coming into being around us from nothing all the time. However the fact that they don't is not the same as saying they couldn't, so even in this logic we are making the assumption that things cannot come into being from nothing based on our experiences which are that things do not.

 

Another example might be the idea that 1 =/= 2. But why can 1 not be equal to 2? What absolute reason for it is there? Just because something seems incomprehensible to us or because we have never seen it before or because it is not possible within the laws we have created, does it mean it is completely impossible? Maybe we just don't understand it, maybe it can't be seen in our universe, maybe it is possible in an universe with different laws.

 

Actually, this reasoning can't hold, because if suppositionally anything can be anything because we cannot improve empirically that it is what we say it is, then there is no such thing as a "thing" because everything is equally everything else. If something is everything, then it is also a lack of everything which means it both exists and doesn't exist. In theory it might look like these states would cancel each other out, leaving everything to be in a perpetual state of "limbo" (between existing an not-existing) but if one thinks about it then non-existence leaves only absence, and when something is brought into absence, absence by definition ceases to be, and we are left with existence. So existence + non-existence = existence, (which incidentally is what Russell was getting at) which means that something cannot be everything and therefore our logical laws must hold absolutely, because there is surely nothing greater than the sum of all our empirical knowledge (which is what logic is), which means there is nothing adequate to refute it.

 

In short, logic and the a priori supersedes the empirical or a posteriori because the a priori is the sum of the a posteriori, and so we must accept some basic logic to be true. This logic can in theory be demonstrated by both mathematics and words to the same level, as the above paragraph demonstrates when it reaches the conclusion that existence + non-existence = existence, which is the same as n + 0 = n.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Daedthr

[dpgillam]

You need to read more Zeno of Elea. He had a wonderful time showing the flaws of an over-reliance on logic.

[Daedthr]

Ah yes, Zeno and his paradoxes. I have to say it has been a while since I've looked at them, the one I remember most is something to do with a race with a tortoise. I don't think it's fair to say that the flaws he tried to demonstrate have gone un-refuted though, many philosophers like Russell have proposed solutions.

 

My point was really that there comes a point in which we must accept certain things to be logical truths because if we don't in brings into question whether or not we can consider anything true at all.

[Mongoose57]

Yay math!

 

The simplest math we have is to NOT something. Basically inverse or negative. Next simpliest is probably algebra...what most people have been using 1 = 1 and n + 0 = n type stuff. The reason you MUST start with these things is NOT because it is the only place to start but because they have been CHOSEN to underly the Fundamentals of Algebra.

 

You can create any type/kind of Math. People can and have created math where 1 = 2 and n=/=n etc. However, this math has never gotten us anywhere remotely useful (still maintained logical consistency tho). So, people use Algebra. And when they do, they are bound by the Fundamentals of their chosen Math!

 

Check out abstract Algebra and Proofs classes! But yes, you can create a Law/Mathematical Principle that uses 1=2 and stay within reason...you just don't get anywhere.

[Daedthr]

Yay math!

 

The simplest math we have is to NOT something. Basically inverse or negative. Next simpliest is probably algebra...what most people have been using 1 = 1 and n + 0 = n type stuff. The reason you MUST start with these things is NOT because it is the only place to start but because they have been CHOSEN to underly the Fundamentals of Algebra.

 

You can create any type/kind of Math. People can and have created math where 1 = 2 and n=/=n etc. However, this math has never gotten us anywhere remotely useful (still maintained logical consistency tho). So, people use Algebra. And when they do, they are bound by the Fundamentals of their chosen Math!

 

Check out abstract Algebra and Proofs classes! But yes, you can create a Law/Mathematical Principle that uses 1=2 and stay within reason...you just don't get anywhere.

 

This is true, but the problem with these mathematical systems is that they of little use to us, because the fundamentals on which they are built do not seem to apply to the universe we live in. The sum of all the empirical experience we have had in history indicates that within our universe, n + 0 = n, thus it is a system based upon this that we use because it is the system that can best be applied to the universe in which we live.

 

This is similar to what I was trying to express earlier, yes you can create a mathematical system based on the idea that 1=2 and develop it further whilst all staying 'in reason'. But you would only be staying in the reason of that system, you would not be staying in the reason that applies to our universe, because all the evidence indicates that 1 =/= 2. Thus, our idea of what reason and the a priori is, is based on experience, it could be argued that the a priori comes from the a posteriori.

 

The true a priori is the purely suppositional, but the realm of the purely suppositional has no necessary laws, so nothing can really be proven by it.

 

It is for this reason that I find it amusing when people point at an a priori argument (an argument from pure logic and reason) and say that there is no 'evidence' around us to support it. Well, actually, the logic and reason that makes up the argument is the sum of all human empirical experience, the a priori is quite literally the highest form of argument, because while the a posteriori is based on selective experience, arguments from reason and logic are based on laws that have been defined by universal human experience since the moment we existed.

 

Somehow in the previous post I managed to miss my own point, and ended up trying to show the opposite in trying to demonstrate that we must hold our logic absolutely. I believe I've now adequately rectified this.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Daedthr

[dpgillam]

Ah yes, Zeno and his paradoxes. I have to say it has been a while since I've looked at them, the one I remember most is something to do with a race with a tortoise. I don't think it's fair to say that the flaws he tried to demonstrate have gone un-refuted though, many philosophers like Russell have proposed solutions.

 

My point was really that there comes a point in which we must accept certain things to be logical truths because if we don't in brings into question whether or not we can consider anything true at all.

Your right. I probably should have pointed to Sophistry instead of Zeno and his paradoxes. Thank you for the correction.