Is religion dying?

[mikkel_the_dane]

And? many things in math are abstractions. That is what math is, basically. Ever seen a negative cow?

Anyway, Where does that make your case that the empty set is NOT the subset of any set? Maybe I cannot understand English, but I do not see it. can you show where they defeat my, and everyone’s case, that the empty set is a subset of every set? i really do not see it. And by the way, that is philosophy, which is interesting but not even that discipline makes your case. And what has physics to do with that? What about the opinion of some biologists? Lol

Anyway, again, even in those articles, my case still has no defeater. In fact, it cannot have it because it can be proven, very easily, that the empty set is subset of every set, including itself, as we have seen.

here is another one, that is also pretty simple. Explains pretty clearly your confusion between elements and subsets. Please let me know what part is too difficult, and we will work it out together.

...

and this should settle it. also with concluding reference to basic material to study classical logic.

ciao

- viole

Here is the problem. See has 2 definitions relevant for this:
See as see with your eyes.
See as understand with your brain.

So you don't see as see logic, you understand it. And that is one kind of truth.
Then there is see as see and that is another kind of truth.

So if you want to claim that logical truth is universal, you run into the problem that is dependent on brains and only true for brain and computers.
Where as universal for all humans as independent of brains function differently and is another kind of truth.

So yes, logic is true for brains, but that is not the same truth as independent of brains. Even I can understand that as a skeptic.

 

[dybmh]

logic is true for brains

Not the logic that's being employed here.

Looking in an empty box and not finding something does not magically fill the box. That is NOT true.

 

[dybmh]

All of them are atheists, since that would reduce to the empty sets whose elements satisfy all properties.

Let's go back to the beginning. Notice: you are talking about the elements of an empty-set as if there are any. But there are none. And that is the flaw that is being repeated ad infinitum.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not the logic that's being employed here.

Looking in an empty box and not finding something does not magically fill the box. That is NOT true.

It is true for certain way of thinking. But it is another kind of truth than what works in the ordinary world.
The problem is in effect for the word know, that it is 2 kinds of knowing and the logical one doesn't apply for the other kind of knowing.

So while @Audie has a point for thinking a certain way, it is not true for the world as such, because we can use truth differently.
So just keep thinking like you do, because it works and she can't prove that you think in a wrong, because it is a fact that you just think differently. That is where her game ends.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You just cannot admit you lack knowledge of basic logic. All of them are atheists, since that would reduce to the empty sets whose elements satisfy all properties.

Why does the empty set or null set or void set (Φ) satisfies every property, every theorem, etc. in the set theory, topology?

Answer (1 of 7): The reason is actually quite fundamental. And make no mistake, this is a good question. After all, might it be unsettling the concept of even implying something from nothingness? Well, the reasoning is that it creates a whole lot more eloquent type of math. In mathematical logi...

www.quora.com

An easy way to see this is to ask the the question: What negates my statement that all the Jews I know are atheists? the answer is: there is at least one Jew I know that is not an atheist. But if I knew no Jews then this is clearly false, and therefore the former statement is true.

Ciao

- viole

Yeah, it is great in your brain, but for the world outside your brain know functions differently.

 

[dybmh]

It is true for certain way of thinking. But it is another kind of truth than what works in the ordinary world.
The problem is in effect for the word know, that it is 2 kinds of knowing and the logical one doesn't apply for the other kind of knowing.

So while @Audie has a point for thinking a certain way, it is not true for the world as such, because we can use truth differently.
So just keep thinking like you do, because it works and she can't prove that you think in a wrong, because it is a fact that you just think differently. That is where her game ends.

No, there is no truth in claiming that not finding something in an empty box, magically fills that empty box. There is no knowledge in that. It is delusion, or psychosis, or dishonesty. Those are the only 3 options.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, there is no truth in claiming that not finding something in an empty box, magically fills that empty box. There is no knowledge in that. It is delusion, or psychosis, or dishonesty. Those are the only 3 options.

Could you please stop doing that? Those people use their brains differently. That is all and it is a fact of how their brain works.
Stop using those words, please. As a crazy person, who are rare, because I understand that I am crazy, these persons are not that.

 

[dybmh]

Could you please stop doing that? Those people use their brains differently. That is all and it is a fact of how their brain works.
Stop using those words, please. As a crazy person, who are rare, because I understand that I am crazy, these persons are not that.

Do you think an empty box can be filled by not finding anything in it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think an empty box can be filled by not finding anything in it?

I want no part of what is really true. You 2 are doing at least 2 kinds of truth as far as I can tell.

 

[dybmh]

I want no part of what is really true. You 2 are doing at least 2 kinds of truth as far as I can tell.

What sort of truth can look in an empty-box, not finding anything, claims that this lack of finding will fill the empty-box with everything. I am sincerely interested in reading and learning about this version of truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What sort of truth can look in an empty-box, not finding anything, claims that this lack of finding will fill the empty-box with everything. I am sincerely interested in reading and learning about this version of truth.

Well, let me state it as simply as I can after 20 years in education helping teachers. No all humans think alike.
You 2 think differently and that is a part of how the world works. I have observed that before and that is how it is.

 

[dybmh]

Well, let me state it as simply as I can after 20 years in education helping teachers. No all humans think alike.
You 2 think differently and that is a part of how the world works. I have observed that before and that is how it is.

So there's no version of truth that can look in an empty-box and claim it is filled with everything when not finding anyting in it? No?

I didn't think so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So there's no version of truth that can look in an empty-box and claim it is filled with everything when not finding anyting in it? No?

I didn't think so.

That is the crux of the matter. You both think differently.

 

[dybmh]

That is the crux of the matter. You both think differently.

I would agree, except for the denial that trivialism is being employed. That shows there is common ground that "everything is not true just because it cannot be proven false." If they said, "Oh yeah, of course everything's true, and I beleive in all religions and all gods, they're all true! You can't tell me they're not." Then,.... then... yes, we think differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would agree, except for the denial that trivialism is being employed. That shows there is common ground that "everything is not true just because it cannot be proven false." If they said, "Oh yeah, of course everything's true, and I beleive in all religions and all gods, they're all true! You can't tell me they're not." Then,.... then... yes, we think differently.

Well, you think how you think and so does she. I just hope that you 2 cope well enough as humans and have a good enough life. That is all for tonight.

 

[viole]

As the video correctly states, the statement is not true, it is false when speaking of real world phenomena.

Done. It is not actually true. Because of this, the empty-set is not actually a subset of every set in real-world phenomena.

You have been saying it is absolutely true. And you were wrong to say it.

Where does it say that? Please tell me where in seconds from the start, so that we can analyze what it says.
Back into making things up?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yeah, it is great in your brain, but for the world outside your brain know functions differently.

That is simply independent from brains. Actually, the less the brain, and its irrational prejudices is used, the better it is.

In fact, it depends on mechanisms to infer truths from other truths in a mechanical way, by assuming what system of logic applies. Something a computer could do. In this case, the set of rules is provided by classical logic. And once you assume the logical formalism, deducing truths like that is as mechanical as crunching numbers on a computer, and could actually be derived by the same computer, even if it does not understand what it does. in fact, it does not need to interpret things at all.

what our intuitions say, or how our brain interpret things, is irrelevant. And should, in fact, play no role at all in the derivation. for instance, to mention the word “lie“ during this process is ridiculous. There are only some initial things axiomatically tagged as true, a set of rules, and new true things deduced by applying the rules like a machine.

The only thing the brain, if human, needs to learn, is how to mechanically apply those rules, in a complete emotionless way. in the same way it needs to learn, say, the rules of chess, in order to play it correctly. Like a robot. Or a formalist, like mathematicians would say. And that is what I mean with “not understanding logic”. It means not understanding how to learn a set of rules and apply them systematically to deduce statements from other statements.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is simply independent from brains. Actually, the less the brain, and its irrational prejudices is used, the better it is.

In fact, it depends on mechanisms to infer truths from other truths in a mechanical way, by assuming what system of logic applies. ...

I can't replicate that process of to infer without a brain or a similar local unit(computer). Now if you can explain how to infer without having a brain, I will listen to you.

I get you are using your brain a certain way, but that is not simply independent from brains. It is objective as a formal way of thinking, but that is not objective as independent of brains.

The evidence is that if your brain .for that ability you have. changed, how you understand logic would change.

 

[viole]

I can't replicate that process of to infer without a brain or a similar local unit(computer). Now if you can explain how to infer without having a brain, I will listen to you.

I get you are using your brain a certain way, but that is not simply independent from brains. It is objective as a formal way of thinking, but that is not objective as independent of brains.

The evidence is that if your brain .for that ability you have. changed, how you understand logic would change.

That does not make much sense.

you are basically saying something like: well, maybe in your mind it is clear that in chess you cannot move the bishop like it was a knight, but other people might interpret chess differently.

which is obviously absurd, since the definition of chess and its rules are not negotiable, if we want to keep calling it chess.

same with the laws of classical logic. If you break then, then you are moving outside classical logic. Whether you have magically found a better system, or a better game, is debatable, but for sure you left classical logic, …. and chess.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That does not make much sense.

you are basically saying something like: well, maybe in your mind it is clear that in chess you cannot move the bishop like it was a knight, but other people might interpret chess differently.

which is obviously absurd, since the definition of chess and its rules are not negotiable, if we want to keep calling it chess.

same with the laws of classical logic. If you break then, then you are moving outside classical logic. Whether you have magically found a better system, or a better game, is debatable, but for sure you left classical logic, …. and chess.

ciao

- viole

Well, yes. Now for chess there are in fact currently 2 set of rules for a certain subset of the rules.
As for logic, yes, there are for some humans the ability to think in the same manner and thus understand logic.

Now in practice for logic, the main difference I have actually found is how different people treat different cases of absurd and how they view different rules.

But as a skeptic I just check if you do all your posts being objective and with reason, logic and evidence/truth/proof and you don't.
It is not that logic doesn't work at all, it is that it has a limit. That is all.