Matthew Hunt Goes Circular?

Debate not quite over when writing this ...

Kukoleck Adam

Admin · 16 mars

"Laws of science are not laws at all...Laws of science state tendincies we have recently observed in our corner of the universe." Bert Kosko; (1960-); Fuzzy Thinking 1993;pg. 8

Matthew Hunt

Scientific laws are simply mathematical representations of empirical data.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

some less than excellent mathematicians deem portions of Calculus in portions of physics as "illogical"?

Matthew Hunt

Gerald T Burridge Jr. What are you on about???

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

under such a presupposition, then are those laws of logic the dominating tendancy of logic in the universe rather than illogic as the dominating tendancy is the universe?

Matthew Hunt

Logic is derived from consistency.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, consistency from logic. Consistency is one of the laws of logic ... and logic shows when it is achieved.

Matthew Hunt

[big laugh]

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

is illogic then derived from its inconsistency

Matthew Hunt

Gerald, that made absolutely no sense...

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

if logic is derived from the consistency "Logic is derived from consistency." then why is illogic not also derived from its inconsistency"?

Matthew Hunt

Define "illogic".

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

with calculus to be operative certain laws of the equations must be implented in sequence. to strive for the desired answer without those eqauations in sequence, striving for a resolution the the set of problems in a manner which ignores that necessary sequence of equaltions is illogical. the same is true of Trigonometry or Geometry and Algebra

Matthew Hunt

I have no idea what you're talking about...

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

have you done calculus? have you done Trigonometry? each have volumes of instructional material which if completed out of sequence will enable you to fail that problem and fail that class. I challenge you to approach a Ph.D Instructor in math and try to convince him or her of the need to use illogic in math

Matthew Hunt

I have four degrees in mathematics including a PhD.

You're talking gibberish as far as I can see.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

so you teach illogic in Calculus? my instructors were not like that , especially when illogical theorems appear on the exams

Matthew Hunt

What are you talking about?

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

If an educational institution is ordering its list of undergraduate courses or its graduate level courses in Algebra, Geometry, Trigonomtry and Calculus courses with an arbitrary and random definition or performing the equations to reach the equation's resolution, (since illogic can be and often is random and arbitrary) then I would like to know the name of the head of that educational institution. Such a claim that Calculus utilizes illogical as an integral portion in attaining a substantial and significant resolution is amusing if preposterous. Even Dr David Berlinski as a mathematician does not propose illogical is instrumental in math of any form

Matthew Hunt

What does this have to do with logic being derived from consistency? All this seems to be nothing more than a red herring.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

any engineer, even in the city engineer, are not depending on illogic. Even the cook in the kitchen requires logic, not illogic

Matthew Hunt

Logic is derived from consistency. In different situations, there is a different types of consistency resulting is different types of logic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

All "types of logic" are applications of - logic. It is a science in its own.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

Hans is your level of reasoning of logic, if logic in its empirical manifestations is a form of science then what is illogical? Since I have requested numerous times from different individuals to explain, if possible, why did logic has gained precedence over illogic in the "big bang"; Chemistry with 118 chemicals is not illogical, just as quantum physics is not illogical.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Illogic is what would contradict the laws of logic.

Saying A is not A, or A is both B and non-B in the same respect, or saying A cannot cause B but causes B anyway.

As I don't believe the Big Bang, I don't know how to answer for Big Bang believers, but logic to my understanding gained prevalence over illogic, because God is consistent and created everything outside Himself (or Themselves, referring to the Three Persons).

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

Hans-Georg Lundahl I totally agree seemingly with the premise you put forth. It seems that Logic is mandatory in all forms of coherent reasoning. Yet for those advocating evolutionary naturalism, the scope of reality seems confined to what the natural mind can rationally comprehends. Such notions of humanity is why I repeatedly request naturalists to explain why logic has preeminence and precedence over illogic.

Matthew Hunt

Gerald, I've explained this. Logic is derived from consistency. Consistency is what we observe and expect to see.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Matthew Hunt Your explanation is useless, since "consistent" and "inconsistent" only mean anything inside a system of logic, and also, many things we do neither observe, nor expect to see, are accepted as consistent, on all sides (like you never observed the inside of an atom).

Matthew Hunt

My explanation is perfectly fine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight .....

Circular, counterfactual ... just fiiiiine!

Matthew Hunt

In your illinformed opinion. Then again you're a geocentrist and therefore should be trusted for analysis of anything.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

Matthew Hunt logic deals more with coherency as with varied forms of comparative consistency. Gravity demonstrates consistency, yet when measuring from the center of gravity time moves at varied leves

Matthew Hunt

Gerald, wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Gerald T Burridge Jr. If you are in for the "light moved millions of light years, while we were having six thousand years" solution, geocentrism gives a better and simpler one, namely, as there is no distance measured to any fix star even at close range (like alpha Centauri) except very indirectly by them being beyond Solar system objects and space probes with known distance, the further "distance measures" in modern cosmology are also totally moot.

New blog on the kid : How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-big-is-kepler-452-geocentric.html

Matthew Hunt "In your illinformed opinion."

I don't need to opine that "consistency" is measured by rules of logic, and you are trying to deduce them from consistency - nor that that is circular.

I only have to deduce it.

AND we have readers: [Linking here]

Matthew Hunt

Lying again?

"In your mind" it's circular when intact they're equivalent. Aristotelian logic is essentially the formal axiomitasion of the consistency we see around us.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

First, no, since it involves concepts, not visions or auditions however well recorded.

Now, if we were just evolved brutes, how could we axiomatate the consistency of the universe, whether seen or unseen?

Matthew Hunt

We evolved rationality and reasoning.

Gerald T Burridge Jr.

Then the rationality and the reasoning from chemical interaction in the 3 1/2 pounds of brain cells makes humanity simply a set of interacting chemical. So does this notion endorse Richard Dawkins 1986 "The Blind Watchmaker" as he writes, "Biology is the study of complicated things that gives the appearance of having been designed for a purpose". So that appearance of design is not marginal, but "overwhelmingly strong". By Richard Dawkins' does the very analysis create the preponderance of the available evidence and a seeminly strong probability?

Matthew Hunt when meauring time from where the Dead Sea is and also simultaneously measuring time from the top of the Alps that slight difference is incrementally measured slightly differently

Matthew Hunt

Computer simulation of biological evolution shows that it can "design" things. So what people claim is design is actually apparent design from evolution.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The computer simulations were actually designed by programmers.

And the question is not if mind is designed, it is if mind has understanding.

No, rationality, reasoning and language cannot be byproducts of matter.

Matthew Hunt

That's a category error you made.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

No, the category error is on your side.

Matthew Hunt

Hans-Georg, I'll explain it to you.

You have the two categories:

• 1) Programmers creating simulations.
• 2) Phenomena which can be simulated.

You're equating the two.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It so happens, reason cannot be successfully simulated by computers.

One other thing which programmers enjoying reason have a hard time simulating is unreasoned processes beyond a certain complexity, which is what evolution is supposed to have been.

My point is, they were not successfully simulating unreasoned evolution, since themselves enjoying reason and using it a bit too much in the shorthands.

Matthew Hunt

Absolute nonsense. Evolutionary algorithms work very well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, my point is, as they were intelligently designed, they work lots better than evolution.

And neither evolution nor an algorithm can create a programmer.

Matthew Hunt

Again, a category error.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yours.

Matthew Hunt

Nope. I explained where you were wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And I explained where you were so.

Seems the Doctores Philosophiae these days are less good at disputing than a century ago.

Matthew Hunt

Or it could be that you're wrong and don't want to admit it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Or it could be you didn't analyse your own concepts enough.

The simulation is in your argument supposed to simulate the origin of one able to make the simulation.

Know what? Do click my both links, do go over the arguments, in order, as given on my posts.

See if you are as satisfied with your argument when reading it all through as when making each point.

Matthew Hunt

I've explained where you are wrong. I've spelled it out for you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Except I refuted it.

Matthew Hunt

You didn't.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

if you didn't see it, maybe others did, read all in context