Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

About drywall though. Here I thought it was a piece of solid material a handyman would put as you say on a hole in the wall maybe to paint over it. And about the ringwoodite -- so now I guess scientists are learning there's lot of enclosed water under the earth.

Yes, that is water that cannot easily leave the core. It may cycle over hundreds of millions of years with the surface.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The water they are talking about is chemically bound, in the form of hydrated minerals. It is not free water. It is what is known as “water of crystallisation”. A hydrated mineral is quite dry to the touch, but under the right conditions it can be chemically altered in a way that releases the bound water, forming a new mineral.

The classic school demonstration of this uses copper sulphate, which is a dry solid composed of pretty, blue crystals. If this is strongly heated, it begins to steam, as water is given off, and turns white. White copper sulphate is a different form, with only one bound water molecule per copper atom instead of five.

The research you refer to has estimated how much water there is present as water of crystallisation in the rocks of the Earth - and it is a lot. It does not mean the rocks are “wet” or that there are oceans of free water beneath our feet.

I like that too. I tend to use the gypsum drywall explanation because that is a material that almost everyone is familiar with.

 

[exchemist]

I like that too. I tend to use the gypsum drywall explanation because that is a material that almost everyone is familiar with.

You could also have used cement or concrete. Everyone has seen this being mixed as a wet slurry, yet it sets to make a dry material that is hard as, well, rock!

 

[YoursTrue]

You could also have used cement or concrete. Everyone has seen this being mixed as a wet slurry, yet it sets to make a dry material that is hard as, well, rock!

ok NOW I'm going to look up what cement is made of.

 

[exchemist]

ok NOW I'm going to look up what cement is made of.

I warn you, this will involve chemistry. In the case of Portland cement, the most commonly used, various calcium silicates, mainly. The reactions are quite complex. But the principle is simple: water becomes chemically bound to produce new, hard, solid, dry substances.

 

[YoursTrue]

You could also have used cement or concrete. Everyone has seen this being mixed as a wet slurry, yet it sets to make a dry material that is hard as, well, rock!

Yeah, not so easy. Cement - Wikipedia
I do not want an explanation about this -- right now -- maybe later in 20 years or so after I figure out a few other things. I know one can cement things together, ok I understand that. But then now I wonder about the expression, "they put cement on the ground," what is the substance called cement. But ok maybe not now.

 

[YoursTrue]

I warn you, this will involve chemistry. In the case of Portland cement, the most commonly used, various calcium silicates, mainly. The reactions are quite complex.

You're right. I'm outta this class about cement right now. Still on volcanoes and their insides. Thanks.

 

[ratiocinator]

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal.​

This is a load of self serving claptrap and a prime example of circular reasoning. By any measure it is wrong.

Conveniently such things are written about the already deceased. There are countless ways to see this and to see the role of language in our silly, circular, and erroneous beliefs. "Socrates is or was alive. All living things die(d). Socrates is (or soon will be ) dead" has the same meaning and is less specific. We know things die only through observation. That things die becomes part of the definition as surely as the meaning of "Socrates" involves him being dead. If there were an immortal man who arose tomorrow it would not affect the accuracy or logic of this statement but it would affect the "truth".

All men are not the same. If Socrates had not not existed, and then did, and then did not like all other life forms have (or probably will) then he might or might not have been a "man". What would we call him if he were still around? A stone?

I would agree that the statement "Socrates was mortal" has some validity but he was not mortal because he was a man but because he died. Essentially the statement merely says "mortal" means to die which is the definition of "mortal" and the root of the circular reasoning.

This is language and it's why people keep playing word games with me instead of addressing points. Language fills us with omniscience and a means to solve every question: We simply engage in a circular argument that sounds good but is devoid of true meaning.

This nonsense wasn't possible in Ancient Language because it there were no abstractions, definitions, or "statements".

It would have read "Socrates was alive. Socrates died. Socrates is no longer alive. The logic was in the grammar rather than formatting. Of course such a concept would almost invariably be shortened to "Socrates died". One of the names of the word "died" was "that which is no longer alive".

These might sound like insignificant points but if you thought in Ancient Language you couldn't start with concepts like species gradually change through survival of the fittest and then reason back to it. There were no beliefs so when they saw species suddenly change at bottlenecks they developed theory through that alone. From there they sought to explain the fossil record.

That Socrates was mortal seems to make perfect sense to us because of the linear way in which we think. In this case "we're born, we live, we die". Abstractions and induction seem to work fine for manipulating our perception of reality but the problem is we can't see where this fails. Our minds continue to see exactly what we already believe until a new hypothesis and supporting experiment shows the current paradigm can not be correct and the new one is.

What if Socrates had lived as long as Methuselah? He'd be just as dead but what would that do the "logic" you suggested? Maybe twice as long as Methuselah? What if he were still alive but at death's door? Or maybe he still looked 25?


An excellent rule of thumb is that when we think someone else is engaged in circular reasoning we are exactly right and when we think we are not then we are exactly wrong. Works like a charm. If you figure out your own circular reasoning then you'll figure out your premises and frequently these premises are based not in scientific models, beliefs, or superstitions but rather in language itself. They are sometimes metaphysical as well but now people will want me to define "metaphysical" for the one millionth time (basis of science).

Conclusion: @cladking doesn't understand formal logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Conclusion: @cladking doesn't understand formal logic.

The list of what some people do not understand is very very long.

 

[cladking]

Conclusion: @cladking doesn't understand formal logic.

You missed my point. Logic can not be expressed in our language because every individual parses every utterance differently.

Our logic depends on abstraction

True logic is quantified to create math or is the basis of manifest reality. Logic animated is life itself, it is consciousness, or more accurately life is logic incarnate. This is invisible to you if you think therefore you are or you believe in "formal logic".

 

[gnostic]

Excuse but what do you mean that is not what a volcano is. I can be more technical I suppose but here's how I see a volcano. It is like a hole (fissure) in the ground (Earth's crust? Or almost like a mountain?) which has very very hot material in that hole. Which can erupt and overflow. I realize this description is rudimentary.

A volcano is the vent and the opening where magma come through as lava.

But the magma don't form at the opening or at the vent.

Magma form either at the magma chamber or deeper, at or near the upper mantle.

Those that magma that flow out of the volcano would form into extrusive igneous rocks after being cooled. Like @Subduction Zone, these magma rocks usually form into basalt rocks.

But magma can cool and form into intrusive rock, underground, like inside the magma chamber. Here because it cool at much slower rate than extrusive igneous rocks, one type of common intrusive rocks are granite.

Second, volcanic rocks don't always occur at the mountains. For instances, many volcanic eruptions deep at ocean floors, because of the tectonic plates are either diverging or converging. These types of eruptions occur along the ocean floor where the plates meet, and magma flow from the mantle, and as the magma would form ridge (underwater mountains).

Have you ever heard of Mid-Atlantic Ridge? Look it up.

Also look up granite, to find how and where granite form. Granite form underground, not from lava flow of volcanic eruptions.

 

[Audie]

The water they are talking about is chemically bound, in the form of hydrated minerals. It is not free water. It is what is known as “water of crystallisation”. A hydrated mineral is quite dry to the touch, but under the right conditions it can be chemically altered in a way that releases the bound water, forming a new mineral.

The classic school demonstration of this uses copper sulphate, which is a dry solid composed of pretty, blue crystals. If this is strongly heated, it begins to steam, as water is given off, and turns white. White copper sulphate is a different form, with only one bound water molecule per copper atom instead of five.

The research you refer to has estimated how much water there is present as water of crystallisation in the rocks of the Earth - and it is a lot. It does not mean the rocks are “wet” or that there are oceans of free water beneath our feet.

Volcanoes release a lot of water in the form of steam, during eruptions. This comes from water of crystallisation. Conversely, when oceanic crustal rock is subducted down into the Earth, as happens offshore from Japan or the Philippines for example, water from the ocean goes down with it and becomes chemically bound to make new minerals as the pressure and temperature go up as the rock descends. So there a water cycle going on between the rocks of the Earth and the oceans.

People who bring up the topic of that " ocean"
must think they could drink sheetrock.

 

[gnostic]

To answer that question, rocks that are sediments are those which were moved along in a liquid substance and then apparently settled. That's how I understand something that is sediment. I cannot answer about rocks that are not sediment. Yet. I guess these rocks were not said to have moved along as in liquid.

Girl, you are so confused.

You still don't understand what sediments are.

Sediments are form from larger rocks, when they are broken down into small grains or minerals, via impact or abrasion. This process is called WEATHERING.

Have you heard of weathering?

Look it up.

Anyway, these grains of stone or minerals are the sediments.

Sediments are deposited, forming layer, and get bury under other layers on top. The weight from upper layers plus pressures, temperature and water, will cause sediment to crystallize and solidify into layer of sedimentary rocks.

Heat and pressure are the main cause of turning sediments into sedimentary rocks.

Sedimentary rocks don't form from lava (molten rocks). Molten rocks only form into igneous rocks, not sedimentary rocks.

 

[cladking]

Conclusion: @cladking doesn't understand formal logic.

Socrates is my cat. All cats have nine lives. Socrates is alive.

My window is made of transparent glass. I can see it is pitch dark outside. I can see darkness.

People call all manner of things "logical" because of nothing but words despite the fact that language has no logic and can't be strung together to create logic because even if you define each term each definition is still being parsed. No two people ever parse any word exactly the same way.

Sunlight shines on the sky. Blue light is scattered in the atmosphere. You can't see our blue sky at night.

People have all manner of strange and incorrect ideas and nobody is immune. Inductive reasoning is often little more than word play that unfolds in our minds. It seems right and might even pass the test of our models but when it does it usually means our models contain the same errors and usually for the same reason; language.

Inductive logic is seductive because it seems to open up all of reality to what we already know. Throw in a lot of circular reasoning and poor models that aren't based in metaphysics but rather in belief, language, assumption, and appearance and every friend of Siri or reader of Darwin suddenly knows everything.

 

[metis]

My philosophical objection to a "universe from authentic nothingness" is that it postulates an event.

But an authentic nothing is a nothing that has no space or time or any other qualities ─ so no possibility of an event can be considered. Krauss's failure was of this kind ─ I'm trying to recall how he put it, but his universe was the result of pre-existing phenomena ie from something, not from nothing.

Literally everything that has or is happening is an "event", thus quantum mechanics certainly doesn't negate that.

 

[ratiocinator]

Socrates is my cat. All cats have nine lives. Socrates is alive.

My window is made of transparent glass. I can see it is pitch dark outside. I can see darkness.

People call all manner of things "logical" because of nothing but words despite the fact that language has no logic and can't be strung together to create logic because even if you define each term each definition is still being parsed. No two people ever parse any word exactly the same way.

You're just emphasising my point. Obviously (from your examples) you have no clue how to put together a logical argument but that doesn't mean that nobody does. You have no idea how science works either but scientists are still doing it.

Inductive reasoning is often little more than word play that unfolds in our minds. It seems right and might even pass the test of our models but when it does it usually means our models contain the same errors and usually for the same reason; language.

Why the sudden shift? You started with criticising the classic example of a deductive argument and the examples in your post seem like inept attempts at similar, now you're suddenly wittering about inductive arguments.

I suggest a bit of education. Look up the difference between inductive and deductive arguments, and, with respect to deductive arguments, the difference between validity and soundness. Then learn how to construct a valid deduction and look at your hopeless examples again.

As for the specifics of your examples:

Socrates is my cat. All cats have nine lives. Socrates is alive, Is invalid.

My window is made of transparent glass. I can see it is pitch dark outside. I can see darkness. Doesn't really have the form of an argument at all (the first premiss seems irrelevant).

My window is made of transparent glass. I can see it is pitch dark outside. I can see darkness. Is just a mess.

 

[cladking]

Literally everything that has or is happening is an "event", thus quantum mechanics certainly doesn't negate that.

Reality itself is an unfolding series of events where each is logically determined by what has come before and every other thing and event that is or has ever occurred.

Indeed, a definition for time might be derived from this. Thanks.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. This is a load of self serving claptrap and a prime example of circular reasoning. By any measure it is wrong.

It is neither a circular argument nor wrong. Regarding circularity, this can be diagrammed geometrically using three concentric circles of differing radii, but using circles doesn't make it a circular argument:

Incidentally, I'd include the implied word "therefore" in the conclusion explicitly.

I think they [the faithful] would agree that a conscious entity intentionally not interacting with reality is thereby interacting with reality.

I would hope not, but you might be correct.

Logic can not be expressed in our language because every individual parses every utterance differently.

Disagree. We just saw the refutation of that with the Socrates syllogism.

Socrates is my cat. All cats have nine lives. Socrates is alive.

Is there an implied "therefore" here in the third statement? If not, you just have three unrelated premises and no conclusions. Also, the second statement is an unshared premise. If so, you have a fallacious argument (non sequitur). Socrates may be alive, but not because he's your cat or because he is said to have (or actually has) nine lives.

 

[cladking]

Socrates is my cat. All cats have nine lives. Socrates is alive, Is invalid.

I don't have a cat named Socrates!? Is it dead? Don't cats have nine lives?

People believe all sorts of things and this is my point. Some people believe you don't need experiment to show species change gradually due to survival of the fittest. Most of these people also believe you can read the fossil record in terms of the "theory". They can't imagine any other way to read the fossils.

I am contending that we each make the same errors of logic, certainly not that any cat has nine lives. However, I've "actually" seen cats die more than once. At least I've seen them get into multiple "fatal" accidents.

Yes! This works much better than words alone but it still has definitional deficiencies. "Mortal" is still just a word that means everything that was alive has or will die. Just because every man has or will die hardly lends meaning to "mortal". nor does it prove that all men are alike and the Socrates falls entirely within "man" and man within "mortal".

It's like saying all footwear is worn on the feet. Wing tip shoes are footwear. Shoes are worn on the foot. It is essentially devoid of meaning. It is also potentially misleading because socks and ankle bracelets are also worn on the feet. Shoes can be used as hat or game pieces in monopoly. Socks are used as mittens and are not always considered "footwear" like flip flops or bandages. Our definitions are always highly fluid and assumptive themselves.

Cats don't really have nine lives (probably) but then we don't really know that all life and all men are mortal or that this will always be the case. Perhaps Socrates will one day be cloned as an immortal and need only two lives. "Man" has numerous meanings all of which do not apply to Socrates or otherwise change the veracity of the statements or cause them to be non sequitur. For instance one definition of "man' is gamekeeper. Socrates was not a man but was still mortal. Even my cat is mortal. There's no such thing as a precise definition. There are many perspectives as well. Socrates was immortal in terms of his work and fame but he was still not a gamekeeper or a cat and yet he died.

Language can have no logic without a set meaning based on what is real rather than abstraction. Certainly some communication takes place and some can be parsed mostly as intended and mostly logically but this isn't the way most conversation is. It's easier for each of us to approximate logic in our thought because we know which definition is intended. But the fact remains no sentence has any meaning until it is parsed and it will be parsed differently by every observer. There is ALWAYS a "wrong" way to parse a sentence. There is ALWAYS a way to parse it to be true and another that it is false. Most people attempt to parse utterances by those who don't share their beliefs to be false or wholly unsupported by dogma.

Is there and implied "therefore" here in the third statement? If not, you just have three unrelated premises and no conclusions.

You noticed that.

I think the same thing applies to Socrates being dead and a man. It is on most levels true but devoid of real meaning because it is just presenting definitions. What the hell else would Socrates be and what is the outcome of birth? If you don't know who Socrates is why would you care if he were mortal or not? The only real information is that Socrates isn't a woman and even here "man" can be used to refer to women as well. Of course he (she) is or will be dead. This is just a little more logical than "I think therefore I am".

Logic is reality. Logic is mathematics. logic is consciousness itself. Logic underlies change in species because it is founded in behavior/ consciousness. But there is and can be no logic in any language ever spoken by homo omnisciencis. All other species experience consciousness directly and their languages always reflect logic and probably do so mathematically.

 

[cladking]

My window is made of transparent glass. I can see it is pitch dark outside. I can see darkness. Doesn't really have the form of an argument at all (the first premiss seems irrelevant). - Is just a mess.

Yes. I was going for a mess.

If glass weren't transparent you couldn't see through it as surely as mortality applies to all life. One can see when it is pitch black outside relative his pupils and ability to see at all. Of course no one can see darkness however as all eyes see only light. But the statement looks logical to someone who doesn't understand science but does have some appreciation for the concept of "transparency" (unlike many birds).

Like "evidence" logic expressed in the languages of homo omniscience is specific to the observer. To say it another way there can be no logic in our language because words are defined and sentenced are parsed. There can be no evidence except to support what we already believe. Why one believes what he believes is irrelevant but most of us believe what we choose to believe.