Must God necessarily be omnimax?

[Meow Mix]

"Do you believe the moon isn't there if you're not looking at it?"

The Moon is not logic. Logic is human rationalization, but don't take my word for it look it up.

Ah, so we're just having a semantic breakdown.

Like in mathematics, there is a distinction between the study of something (including the formalisms, paradigms, syntax, symbols, words, etc.) and the thing being studied itself.

Fine, I will clarify then: the laws that we study that we categorically name "logic" are not contingent. Our formalisms for expressing them, however, are contingent.

Make more sense now? I would have thought that my statements about things still being what they are regardless of whether anyone's around to note such state of affairs would be enough to show that I'm talking about the objects we study in logic, not the practice of studying them itself.

This same problem comes up with mathematics a lot: someone will assert that we create mathematics, but what someone might mean by "Mathematics are external to minds" is that the objects of mathematics are external; not the study itself -- same thing here.

Edit: I swear I didn't mean to come off as snippy as this post sounds, lol.

 

[Jeremiah]

Ah, so we're just having a semantic breakdown.

Like in mathematics, there is a distinction between the study of something (including the formalisms, paradigms, syntax, symbols, words, etc.) and the thing being studied itself.

Fine, I will clarify then: the laws that we study that we categorically name "logic" are not contingent. Our formalisms for expressing them, however, are contingent.

Make more sense now? I would have thought that my statements about things still being what they are regardless of whether anyone's around to note such state of affairs would be enough to show that I'm talking about the objects we study in logic, not the practice of studying them itself.

This same problem comes up with mathematics a lot: someone will assert that we create mathematics, but what someone might mean by "Mathematics are external to minds" is that the objects of mathematics are external; not the study itself -- same thing here.

Edit: I swear I didn't mean to come off as snippy as this post sounds, lol.

"Ah, so we're just having a semantic breakdown."

Yes we are, you just suggested the Moon is logic.

"Mathematics are external to minds" is that the objects of mathematics are external; not the study itself -- same thing here."

Math is subjective as well. Said "objects" are not math, just like the Moon is not logic. You are confusing the objective world with its subjective doppelganger.

 

[Meow Mix]

"Ah, so we're just having a semantic breakdown."

Yes we are, you just suggested the Moon is logic.

"Mathematics are external to minds" is that the objects of mathematics are external; not the study itself -- same thing here."

Math is subjective as well. Said "objects" are not math, just like the Moon is not logic. You are confusing the objective world with its subjective doppelganger.

No, I suggested that the moon is what it is regardless of whether we're around to think about it is logic -- or if you prefer, what logic studies. If it helps, I can just say "identity is not contingent" perhaps; but it's easier to just say "logic" so it includes other incorrigibles besides identity.

Math is not subjective. Regardless of whatever convention you like to use to call mathematical and logical objects, I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding.

There is a difference between talking about "two apples" and just talking about "two." Apples are contingent. "Two" is not.

 

[Jeremiah]

No, I suggested that the moon is what it is regardless of whether we're around to think about it is logic -- or if you prefer, what logic studies. If it helps, I can just say "identity is not contingent" perhaps; but it's easier to just say "logic" so it includes other incorrigibles besides identity.

Math is not subjective. Regardless of whatever convention you like to use to call mathematical and logical objects, I hope I've cleared up this misunderstanding.

There is a difference between talking about "two apples" and just talking about "two." Apples are contingent. "Two" is not.

"what logic studies. "

Logic does not study either, humans study using logical thought; which is a subjective undertaking.

 

[Meow Mix]

"what logic studies. "

Logic does not study either, humans study using logical thought; which is a subjective undertaking.

If I'd have spelled something wrong would you have pointed that out, too? So I worded something incorrectly, yeesh.

Studying logic is not subjective. Certain logical laws are self-evident and incorrigible. It isn't possible to doubt their efficacy without self-refuting. They are still true even if there are no minds to conceive them.

I'm not sure how to be more clear about what I'm saying without some tiny portion of incorrect wording getting nit-picked.

 

[Jeremiah]

If I'd have spelled something wrong would you have pointed that out, too? So I worded something incorrectly, yeesh.

Studying logic is not subjective. Certain logical laws are self-evident and incorrigible. It isn't possible to doubt their efficacy without self-refuting. They are still true even if there are no minds to conceive them.

I'm not sure how to be more clear about what I'm saying without some tiny portion of incorrect wording getting nit-picked.

"Studying logic is not subjective."

Yes, it is. Studying, anything, is subjective. Perceiving "truth" by math or logic is subjective; understanding by math or logic is subjective. The fact that the moon exist is not logic, that is the truth, and our perception/understanding of that truth is subjective.

And this, "that the moon is what it is regardless of whether we're around to think about it" is a logical thought.


"I'm not sure how to be more clear about what I'm saying"

Let me put your mind to rest, because I know exactly what you are saying. I just disagree with your understanding of "logic".

 

[andys]

You two are rehashing the famous debate between John Locke and Bishop Berkeley.
In a footnote, the Bishop won. That would be you, Meow Mix.

(It is clear that Jeremiah is not a student of philosophy, at least Formal Logic. I congratulate you on your patience and well formed arguments.)

 

[Meow Mix]

"Studying logic is not subjective."

Yes, it is. Studying, anything, is subjective. Perceiving "truth" by math or logic is subjective; understanding by math or logic is subjective. The fact that the moon exist is not logic, that is the truth, and our perception/understanding of that truth is subjective.

And this, "that the moon is what it is regardless of whether we're around to think about it" is a logical thought.


"I'm not sure how to be more clear about what I'm saying"

Let me put your mind to rest, because I know exactly what you are saying. I just disagree with your understanding of "logic".

Do you think it's possible for the law of identity to be false; or that it's necessary for minds to perceive objects for the state of affairs it describes to be true?

 

[Willamena]

Ah, so we're just having a semantic breakdown.

Like in mathematics, there is a distinction between the study of something (including the formalisms, paradigms, syntax, symbols, words, etc.) and the thing being studied itself.

Not just semantic, but perspective. From an epistomological perspective, we know what is; from an ontological perspective, what we know exists. From one perspective, logic is contingent; from another, not. Both are true.

 

[Meow Mix]

Not just semantic, but perspective. From an epistomological perspective, we know what is; from an ontological perspective, what we know exists. From one perspective, logic is contingent; from another, not. Both are true.

Yes, but I feel like I've been clear enough I'm talking about the ontological picture. Jeremiah has said he understands that and still disagrees. I'm trying to find out more about his position in the meantime.