Virtually all arguments/opinions/forms of logic can be proven wrong

[douche]

All forms of logic are the product of language -> language is restricted to itself -> language can be used to deconstruct all forms of logic

Even statements like 1 + 1 = 2 can be refuted

This is why debating isnt real

 

[Klasik01]

All forms of logic are the product of language -> language is restricted to itself -> language can be used to deconstruct all forms of logic

Even statements like 1 + 1 = 2 can be refuted

This is why debating isnt real

Prove 1 + 1 ≠ 2

 

[darkness97]

i've never seen such an intelligently retarded statement in my life.

 

[douche]

Prove 1 + 1 ≠ 2

1 + 1 = 2 is only a rule that can be applied to some things, stating it exists means it applies to everything as a universal rule

for example; a waterdrop and another waterdrop combine to make, well, one (larger) waterdrop so how can 1 + 1 = 2?, theres still only one waterdrop

 

[douche]

i've never seen such an intelligently retarded statement in my life.

id ask you to attempt to refute it but

This is why debating isnt real

 

[darkness97]

1 + 1 = 2 is only a rule that can be applied to some things, stating it exists means it applies to everything as a universal rule

for example; a waterdrop and another waterdrop combine to make, well, one (larger) waterdrop so how can 1 + 1 = 2?, theres still only one waterdrop

that's not how you disprove 1 + 1 = 2. you either never taken mathematics of you failed out of it university.

even the way you contextualize it makes no fucking sense. it's a concept that you're not even apply correctly in reality.

you are literally using the answer of 2 as two separate entities when it has combined to one entity being two. these are interesting questions but, you have unharnessed intelligence that needs to go to class instead of shit posting.

if you take 1 mL of water and add it to 1 mL of water you will get 2 mL of water.

 

[Klasik01]

1 + 1 = 2 is only a rule that can be applied to some things, stating it exists means it applies to everything as a universal rule

for example; a waterdrop and another waterdrop combine to make, well, one (larger) waterdrop so how can 1 + 1 = 2?, theres still only one waterdrop

You're can't mix some sustains. And we can't measure things with numbers, only refer to them with tools like a simple ruler. 1 is not a real object, 2 is not one object and another same object because real objects can never be the same. No ball is similar to another, what we name ball is the idea of a general object not the object itself in reality. So 1 + 1 = 2 in the sense 1 and 1 are the same and the group of "2" is actually 1 and 1, 2 isn't different than 1 in quality but quantity. Quality is part of an idea in the mind (a phenomenon) which is not a number. Quantity is not a phenomenon.

 

[douche]

that's not how you disprove 1 + 1 = 2. you either never taken mathematics of you failed out of it university.

ok well while mathematicians write a 286 page proof manifesto of why 1 + 1 = 2 (spoiler alert: it doesnt) ill spend my time accomplishing things in the real world ie shitposting on forums

you are literally using the answer of 2 as two separate entities when it has combined to one entity being two

how can one waterdrop be two waterdrops? doesnt make sense to me

 

[butterworld]

All forms of logic are the product of language -> language is restricted to itself -> language can be used to deconstruct all forms of logic

Even statements like 1 + 1 = 2 can be refuted

This is why debating isnt real

Logic isn’t normative, it’s descriptive. It’s not the product of language, language allows our ape brains to articulate logical statements.

 

[darkness97]

ok well while mathematicians write a 286 page proof manifesto of why 1 + 1 = 2 (spoiler alert: it doesnt) ill spend my time accomplishing things in the real world ie shitposting on forums

based. apologies, i didn't realize who i was talking to.

how can one waterdrop be two waterdrops? doesnt make sense to me

i thought that's what you were saying

 

[douche]

You're can't mix some sustains. And we can't measure things with numbers

exactly, so proposing axioms on abstract concepts doesnt seem rational to me

 

[darkness97]

Logic isn’t normative, it’s descriptive. It’s not the product of language, language allows our ape brains to articulate logical statements.

lol this is literally like the reddit stereotype of how to find the answer to something? by posting the wrong answer and ever fucking smart person comes out of the wood work to prove them wrong

 

[darkness97]

exactly, so proposing axioms on abstract concepts doesnt seem rational to me

an axiom is an abstract concept you fukin dolt.

 

[douche]

language allows our ape brains to articulate logical statements.

this is circular reasoning, so our ape brains produce logic and then uses language to decipher it? what is this mystical logic that our brains produce, point it out to me

 

[douche]

an axiom is an abstract concept you fukin dolt.

its over

edit: its not, op still applies

 

[Klasik01]

exactly, so proposing axioms on abstract concepts doesnt seem rational to me

If you read Kant or Wittgenstein it must be clear that perception (human sensibility) takes a different language than mathematical language. No matter of our perception depends on numbers, no "meaning" depends on a number. Just because time is measured doesn't mean that measure is the meaning of time. We can play with different scales to create different timetables. The world we have depends on the language we use, example: coding. Without coding we couldn't create computers, our brain is able to understand when to use these tools to create culture. Not everything is related to everything.

 

[douche]

i thought that's what you were saying

thats what i am saying?

 

[darkness97]

its over

edit: its not, op still applies

it is because there is nothing tangible about axioms. it depends on hwo you use the word i guess ..

this is circular reasoning, so our ape brains produce logic and then uses language to decipher it?

kind of, you got it all fucked up. we use language to articulate logic. which language and logic are being produced by the brain.

 

[douche]

If you read Kant or Wittgenstein it must be clear that perception (human sensibility) takes a different language than mathematical language. No matter of our perception depends on numbers, no "meaning" depends on a number. Just because time is measured doesn't mean that measure is the meaning of time. We can play with different scales to create different timetables. Modern philosophers wasted hours of studying trying to connect perception/knowledge, movement and logic but is not humanly possible.

so im right?

 

[mayo mogger]

so can this be disproven too?

 

[douche]

we use language to articulate logic

wtf is logic? our emotions??

 

[douche]

so can this be disproven too?

precisely; hence

This is why debating isnt real

 

[funkyflamingo]

niggas tryna be different so bad

 

[butterworld]

this is circular reasoning, so our ape brains produce logic and then uses language to decipher it? what is this mystical logic that our brains produce, point it out to me

No retard, logic is descriptive, meaning it doesn’t conform to the subjectivity of humans, it simply exists and our ape brain uses language as a means of communicating logic. For example the argument 2+2=4 always existed without needing language or humans, we simply discovered it through our evolved cognitive apparatuses.

 

[Klasik01]

so im right?

About math own science, no. About mixing math and human knowledge, yes. We can debate forever if we have a subject like "economy" what's the limits of that word? No limits. Same thing with each word that involves an object, common language is useful to discover "truth" while any of the past propositions don't get refuted. If past propositions change then truth changes, it depends on human knowledge. I don't understand Godel's theorem btw, I won't be saying anything about truth in math.

 

[darkness97]

wtf is logic? our emotions??

logic is what is developed in our balls, which reaches our minds which allows us to seek females. we know that females like smart guys so we invented logic to seduce females because 99% of the planet aren't chads.

so in a sense they are our emotions as it is our emotional need to get laid. simple. as fuck dude

 

[douche]

No retard, logic is descriptive, meaning it doesn’t conform to the subjectivity of humans, it simply exists and our ape brain uses language as a means of communicating logic. For example the argument 2+2=4 always existed without needing language or humans, we simply discovered it through our evolved cognitive apparatuses.

but what is logic and what is it describing exactly

 

[darkness97]

but what is logic and what is it describing exactly

logic is formed in the erect cock. it has to be below 7 inches our else nothing will come out. logic only comes out of sub 7 inch cocks. below 5 inches you get phd level knowledge, below 4.... you're basically einstein

 

[douche]

logic is what is developed in our balls, which reaches our minds which allows us to seek females. we know that females like smart guys so we invented logic to seduce females because 99% of the planet aren't chads.

so in a sense they are our emotions as it is our emotional need to get laid. simple. as fuck dude

so it would make more sense to ascribe logic as a means to articulate emotions. emotions -> logic -> language, so then again how does 1 + 1 exist if its the product of 'logic' which is an attempt at articulating our emotions therefore not real??

 

[douche]

so it would make more sense to ascribe logic as a means to articulate emotions. emotions -> logic -> language, so then again how does 1 + 1 exist if its the product of 'logic' which is an attempt at articulating our emotions therefore not real??

@butterworld ?

 

[douche]

About math own science, no. About mixing math and human knowledge, yes

how can the two co exist

 

[darkness97]

so it would make more sense to ascribe logic as a means to articulate emotions.

maybe but would you consider math and science to be emotional subjects that you can intuitively know if you're empathatic?

emotions -> logic -> language,

these are unrelated entities that cannot be shown in this way. you can't 'feel' whether an answer is correct or not or whether if it aligns under the the logic underpinned by the axioms we have set.

language is very different though, language isn't always logical, and isn't developed by logically consistent rules. i would say that language is developed through emotions and develop through a complicated pathway.

we have to begin with emotions but there is a relationship between emotions and logic. we feel hungry but use our logic to find a way to feel ourselves. if we didn't feel hunger, we wouldn't have developed the logic in attaining it.

so emotions are definitely the intro because it is the starting point of the subjective sense of need. logic is the awareness and the named pursuit of that need. and language is a tool that is under the realm of logic.

i would say its emotions ---> logic
>language

so then again how does 1 + 1 exist if its the product of 'logic' which is an attempt at articulating our emotions therefore not real??

maybe

 

[butterworld]

so it would make more sense to ascribe logic as a means to articulate emotions. emotions -> logic -> language, so then again how does 1 + 1 exist if its the product of 'logic' which is an attempt at articulating our emotions therefore not real??

Logic refers to the laws of logic and the conclusions that arise from deductive reasoning. Propositions follow a set of axioms and and each proposition within an argument follows from one another through rules of inference.

Theorems in math are logic, they’re propositions that lead to a sound conclusion from a set of axioms. We use human language to make known of the logical relations that take place within our reality, what’s logical doesn’t require language.

 

[douche]

Logic refers to the laws of logic

logic refers to logic? seems like circular reasoning to me

Propositions follow a set of axioms

circular axioms that dont exist in reality

We use human language to make known of the logical relations that take place within our reality, what’s logical doesn’t require language.

so language is the product of logic which is the product of someones perception of reality, so a means of pattern recognition.

perhaps there are flaws in this form of pattern recognition? which is why i dont believe in debating (despite partaking in it rn) bc logic is a flawed concept at its basis

 

[douche]

maybe

maybe

translation: youre right

 

[Klasik01]

maybe but would you consider math and science to be emotional subjects that you can intuitively know if you're empathatic?


these are unrelated entities that cannot be shown in this way. you can't 'feel' whether an answer is correct or not or whether if it aligns under the the logic underpinned by the axioms we have set.

language is very different though, language isn't always logical, and isn't developed by logically consistent rules. i would say that language is developed through emotions and develop through a complicated pathway.

we have to begin with emotions but there is a relationship between emotions and logic. we feel hungry but use our logic to find a way to feel ourselves. if we didn't feel hunger, we wouldn't have developed the logic in attaining it.

so emotions are definitely the intro because it is the starting point of the subjective sense of need. logic is the awareness and the named pursuit of that need. and language is a tool that is under the realm of logic.

i would say its emotions ---> logic
>language

maybe

The world is not logical. Read David Hume's unrefutable book on human nature, there's no necessity in the world the "logic" we create in the way of living a human life can always change and depends on emotions as you said but that's not logic, there's no causality in nature not even science can predict everything the sein is always missing out on human knowledge. To talk about propositions that don't depend on real objects is a different language than the common process humans live to get food, some humans might have created other types of ways to get food there's nothing logical in that, the feeling of being hungry depends on a certain body so even emotions cannot be free and universal, drugged people are not happy at all they're living a lie based on a sustains that affects their body for a moment.

 

[darkness97]

translation: youre right

oh no, you're dead fucking wrong i just stopped taking this conversation seriously.

 

[oldcel2002]

im bookmarking this and coming back to it in a couple years when my iq isn’t below room temperature

 

[moggathon]

Essay DNR

 

[oldcel2002]

prove this wrong.

God exists

 

[douche]

The world is not logical

i disagree, i think the world/existence is very logical. just because humans arent able to (currently) comprehend it doesnt mean its not following an observable pattern, which i guess is what 'logic' is or is attempting to do

 

[douche]

just stopped taking this conversation seriously

thats because you conceptualised that debating isnt real

 

[Klasik01]

i disagree, i think the world/existence is very logical. just because humans arent able to (currently) comprehend it doesnt mean its not following an observable pattern, which i guess is what 'logic' is or is attempting to do

Exactly attempting to do it for the last 4000 years (starting with Indians) and we still have philosophers trying to make books on epistemology lol it's never gonna happen, language determines what we can say about the world in a logical way, to describe the world but is not exactly how is the world supposed to work forever with our big brain theories. Human brain tries to make explanations for everything but I guess nature is faster and we will never have a theory of all, prove progress is real and I'll believe. Some people think we're reaching a final truth lol we have an infinite amount of theories that don't clash with each other.

 

[darkness97]

thats because you conceptualised that debating isnt real

no you're fucking around man. a lot of the questions you have can be solved by simple google searches and reading books. people like @butterworld have already read those books, attended those lectures in some form and you haven't.

he already answered you question and your refusing to accept it, he realized this and stopped replying or got bored to my knowledge. this debate is now become trying to get you to understand your questions not making any sense and teaching you like a professor. it's not our job and we're bored.

i started trolling as well.

this has gotten boring and i am too wasted to really continue this so believe that you won.

 

[douche]

Some people think we're reaching a final truth lol

are we not?

 

[butterworld]

logic refers to logic? seems like circular reasoning to me

no moron logic is a sum aggregate of assumptions and logical relations, the laws of logic refer to the three laws of thought proposed by Plato.

circular axioms that dont exist in reality

circular axioms? it seems redundant to call axioms circular, by definition they’re self attesting assumptions we use to build arguments.

you being a nihilist on axioms that have built the system of mathematics is retarded and isn’t a respectable view held by anyone with high IQ

so language is the product of logic which is the product of someones perception of reality, so a means of pattern recognition.

perhaps there are flaws in this form of pattern recognition? which is why i dont believe in debating (despite partaking in it rn) bc logic is a flawed concept at its basis

Im unclear on what you mean by pattern recognition but if you're referring to human rationality yes we’re fallible limited apes our perception of reality can be mislead and our words can muddied by lack of clarity.

however that doesn’t change the fact that language is what we use to understand logical statements, and logical statements formulate the arguments that define existent entities within our reality.

 

[Klasik01]

no you're fucking around man. a lot of the questions you have can be solved by simple google searches and reading books. people like @butterworld have already read those books, attended those lectures in some form and you haven't.

he already answered you question and your refusing to accept it, he realized this and stopped replying or got bored to my knowledge. this debate is now become trying to get you to understand your questions not making any sense and teaching you like a professor. it's not our job and we're bored.

i started trolling as well.

this has gotten boring and i am too wasted to really continue this so believe that you won.

He didn't prove why 1 + 1 ≠ 2 he started to say water + water ≠ water 2

 

[darkness97]

He didn't prove why 1 + 1 = 2 he started to say water + water ≠ water 2

there is a way to prove it, because i am not a grad student in mathematics nor too fucking retarded to indulge op seriously i can't answer that.

legit look it up. you're on the internet. you can find a mathematical proof of why that is the case if you're actually serious about learning and not just being contrarian.

your questions have been answered years ago, even if i was a grad student and was dumb enough to waste my time on a genuine reply you probably wouldn't understand it due to you arrogance and fear of actual mathematics

 

[Klasik01]

there is a way to prove it, because i am not a grad student in mathematics nor too fucking retarded to indulge op seriously i can't answer that.

legit look it up. you're on the internet. you can find a mathematical proof of why that is the case if you're actually serious about learning and not just being contrarian.

your questions have been answered years ago, even if i was a grad student and was dumb enough to waste my time on a genuine reply you probably wouldn't understand it due to you arrogance and fear of actual mathematics

How do I prove mathematical axioms? In what depends the self assumptions of axioms, in me? Not all triangle angles are equal to 180°, some triangles might have more depending if the surface is curved. Draw a figure that looks like a triangle (but not perfect) in your hand then move your hand so the surface will change into the angle you want to see, you'll see a triangle. Only in two dimensions all triangles angles equal to 180°. In a curved surface you'll see a triangle who's angles are equal to 180° and 270° at the same time. So the axiom depends on the world aka your eyes.

 

[Meteor21]

1 + 1 = 2 is only a rule that can be applied to some things, stating it exists means it applies to everything as a universal rule

for example; a waterdrop and another waterdrop combine to make, well, one (larger) waterdrop so how can 1 + 1 = 2?, theres still only one waterdrop

The mass doubled, bro