The First Flawless Philosophy

oops, I seem to have posted a bullshit link instead of the actual flawless philosophy. Here you go:

https://dflund.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf

>>8683658
Oh got me. Read the link I posted.

>>8683668
no.

>>8683746
Well, it is what i called it.

>>8683638
So what is the conclusion? That the purpose of life is to not think? Or only think logically?

>>8684952
No its to think sometimes but not other times.

>>8685079
Ok, but is that not what already occurred? What should be thought about and what should not be thought about?

Philosophy is half logic not full logic. Go shill this on philosophy boards, I'm sure they'll love tearing it apart.

No, philosophy is full logic. You do not know what you are talking about mate. Philosophy is an attempt to understand the true nature of existence, and the only method for that is logic.

>>8684952
The conclusion is both of these things - to think logically is to no longer think. When this becomes science, it will be known as fact and then we shall all act logically, and die, as one.

>>8685198
This should be thought about up until it is understood, and then it should no longer be thought about. I have understood it, and I have made it possible for all to share my understanding through my advanced grasp of language. Therefore, when it becomes fact, we shall all cease thinking about existence, in this universe anyway.

>>8687652
>>8686557

What do you think about: pleasure, enjoyment, entertainment, the variety of things people do (from racecars, to bird watching, video games, sports, watch making, stamp collecting, fashion, tv shows), generally the nature or fact of freedom/free time and hobby?

What are some big things that occur, that people do, that you think are illogical, or should not occur?

>>8683638
Somehow, I broke my old link. This is the new one:
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AshN1BJh7gg5lnlU64266llB3IKw

>>8688212
I think that they are done to alleviate boredom, because we are beings of purpose with no greater purpose, we must perpetually fill our time with short term goals simply so that we may persist. Hobbies are a distraction from the unpleasant nature of existence.
There are several big things that occur that are completely illogical - belief in a deity is illogical, global warming is illogical, and existence is illogical. Those are 3 big things.

>>8688533
Dont know if you are actually OP.

So you believe there is an absolute correct way for humans to exist; can you describe some things about that ideal world society? Would people just be semi glorified animals, still progressing science, invention, innovation, but only doing what is absolutely necessary, spending all free time meditating, and/or empty mindedly frowning, and/or simple monk chanting?

Existence is illogical... so your flawless philosophy is that the most logical thing is for every human to kill themselves?

>>8688749
Yes I am.

The only thing we can do from here is attempt to make this understanding of existence available to any other life that is complex enough to make a sustained attempt to understand itself.

Existence is illogical only because we have completely understood what it is, and what it will always be, and it's objectively a negative experience because it's both unfair and pointless to continue.

Therefore, the most logical thing to do is to orchestrate a mass-suicide such that we are able to remove the worst elements of death - pain during death and sorrow for those left behind - and all go together so that no-one ever has to die alone again, and according to logic death in this universe has more meaning than life ever did, so it is the logical choice.

>>8686557
>Philosophy is an attempt to understand the true nature of existence, and the only method for that is logic.

haha

>>8690248
If you disagree, provide another definition or another method. There aren't any.

>>8690268
no you're right, philosophy is an attempt to understand the true nature of existence, except when it isn't. and the only method for understanding the true nature of existence is logic, except when it isn't.

unfalsifiability isn't flawlessness and maybe you should account for other definitions or methods to substantiate your claims instead of just being tricked to follow down a certain path by your own word usage.

3/10 for making me read

>>8690241
>>8688749
Existence is not illogical. It's the need to explain it in words, use the representation that is language, that is lacking.
Shit exists. Things work or they don't. Living organisms do shit they don't try to explain themselves. It's the difference between tell me and show me.
> most logical thing to do is to orchestrate a mass-suicide
No need. Everyone will die, you just have to wait it out. Time is the ultimate destroyer. All the poets complain about it. How there's not enough time. How old age comes in a blink of an eye. It is the source of our sorrows. But guess what? There's a way to outrun it. It's called reproduction to which all living beings do. Reproduction dominates our lives. TV, porn, strip clubs, marriage, all result in children. These children become adults, and have more children in an endless cycle. It is not that we are programmed for reproduction, but that time will eliminate everything else.

File: philosophy.png (33KB, 669x490px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 669x490px

>>8690278
"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence"
If a philosophy is not an attempt to understand the nature of existence, then it is not a philosophy, or it is an incomplete attempt at philosophy.

If you believe there is another method for understanding than logic, DO TELL. Because there isn't one, you cannot come up with one, I cannot come up with one, and that doesn't prove that there isn't one but it does make it perfectly logical to assume there isn't one - you have looked, and not found, therefore it might not be there.

>>8690296
This just isn't true; I have explained it in words. My description of the true nature of existence was determined using flawless logic, and thus it is the objective nature of existence.
I do NOT agree that shit exists - it simply appears to exist. Living organisms only DO shit to survive. We beat survival long ago, therefore we just DO shit. So, since we ONLY do shit, and that shit has no real purpose, the main thing we do is contemplate the idea that we do shit without a purpose, and attempt to understand it. It has never before been understood, so humans have always kept doing shit. Humans clearly would like to understand though, that's what writing and philosophy and science are about. CLEARLY we want to know, we just don't know how to know. I know how, this is how. These are the facts about existence, not my opinions.
Reproduction will not outrun time; death will claim us in the end and it will be a horrible experience for everyone who dies, because death is painful for you and full of sorrow for all those left behind. Reproduction only makes sense in the perpetuation of existence is logical - I am saying it is not.

>>8690308
>google definition

jesus christ you're clearly not a philosopher are you. in any case, you're excluding 'knowledge' and 'reality' from your own definition. no, they're not all the same thing

>I cannot come up with one

because you can't think

> therefore it might not be there.

because you couldn't find it in a quick look at einstein's wikipedia article, descartes most famous assertion, and your google definition of philosophy? yeah real rigorous champ

when you're done with sucking yourself off with how well you can fool yourself into believing your own bullshit, maybe you'll become a little more humble and actually want to engage with philosophy rather than role-play as a philosopher

>>8690325
A google definition is just as accurate as a definition from a dictionary site... The definition of the word is NOT unclear.
I determine knowledge to be useful in understanding and understanding useful in determining action. That is the nature knowledge plays in existence - I did not leave it out.

You sound like a bit of a baby, crying that I disproved your existence.
I don't give a fuck what you think about my mental capacity, the fact of the matter is, if YOU personally cannot come up with another method for thinking, then YOU should assume there is not one; that is logic. Therefore, come up with one yourself, or shut the fuck up you ignorant mongoloid, because currently you are the guy in science who says "nope the earth is flat because fuck what you think, it's always been this way"

>>8690325
Reality, I determine to be a subject's world-view, or in the case of the human reality, the most common elements among the world-views of all the individual humans. Therefore, the human reality is currently whatever we think it is. Therefore, reality means nothing in itself; only objective truth is reliable.

>>8690335
>A google definition is just as accurate as a definition from a dictionary site...

nice, you completely missed my point. and you're still leaving out 'reality', but not that it matters because it has nothing to do with the point.

is that the jump-off point for a foray into logic? a dictionary definition? what a joke

>if YOU personally cannot come up with another method for thinking

no, i have nothing to do with it. and you missed the point where your shallow research into philosophy has made you miss possible other definitions because there is no intellectual rigor to your philosophy. you are just making shit up and you are believing yourself because you haven't done sufficient research to think of your own words critically.

you can't even follow a 4chan post dude.

you're not a thinker.

>>8690346
Yes, the definition of the language involved IS the starting point for a foray into logic you complete fucking idiot hahahaha
I responded above your reply about reality.

You are completely incorrect, if that were true I would have it refuted in person. I have shown my philosophical ideas to the greatest thinkers I know personally, and none of them have been able to say HOW or WHY it is flawed, no matter how hard they have tried, because it isn't.

Humans experience a purely emotional reaction of their survival instinct when someone attempts to disprove them, and then they attempt to logically explain their undeniable feeling that something is wrong.

I have news for you fucko, just because you feel something is wrong is not a good reason that it is wrong. If you cannot show me that it's wrong, I don't think anyone can, and I am going to make this idea Science. If you are confident it's complete nonsense, then you're fine hey...

But if there's a chance it's not nonsense, then that makes you nonsense. And you will die.

This guy is proof that philosophy is running out of ideas.

>>8690403
Nice rebuttal, I adored your use of logic in pointing out the flaws in the things I think.

Oh wait, that's right... you can't, so you decided to give a derisive opinion in the subconscious hope you can dissuade me from spreading my ideas and ending your existence without your explicit choice.

>>8690385
Except you are using words to describe your theory. Words can be wrong. Language is flawed. i.e. a representation. A representation will never be the real thing. A picture of the president is not the actual president. A wax figure of Lincoln is not Lincoln. The word "apple" will not fill an empty stomach. Your theory will never be absolutely correct. You can't know nothing.

>>8690417
Correct, it IS a subjective representation of an objective truth, and that representation could be flawed. I do not believe the objective fact it represents is flawed. If you think my language is unclear, or damages my meaning then tell me and I will make efforts to repair it. If you cannot determine which part of my language is responsible for the misunderstanding, then YOU are probably the part responsible for misunderstanding, not my words.

If you cannot figure out exactly what the problem with something is, MAYBE there isn't one. Not definitely, but maybe.

>>8690320
How can you explain people that get over grief then?

>>8690385
still missing the point! a definition is involved, but you think a dictionary definition is adequate, or that part of your definition is fine just being left unsaid.

>if that were true I would have it refuted in person

unconvincing.

>none of them have been able to say HOW or WHY it is flawed, no matter how hard they have tried, because it isn't.

like i said, it's unfalsifiable. it's lazy.

> If you cannot show me that it's wrong

that's a big if and like i have previously said, what i think is not the point. it's that you're not showing work, you're not adequately defining things, you're not convincingly arguing anything, you are not sufficiently substantiating your claims. you are engaging in sleight of hand rather than philosophy.

yes it is logical to assume that if you haven't found something it might not exist, but again like i said before you haven't really demonstrated that you've actually looked. and from this it is obvious that you do not engage with philosophy, you role-play

i would ask you again to actually keep up with the pace of the conversation but i don't see the point in continuing if you can't understand my position. enjoy your meme philosophy

>>8690425
>Do my work for me.

>>8690426
What is there to do except to die or get over it. What do you mean how do I explain it? Something has to happen.

>>8690426
Actually never mind i misread your post, sorry.

I do think that death is not as bad as you make it out to be (if you're expecting it that is)

>>8690441
No, I have done my work already, that is what I link you to. I challenge you to test it, because I call it fact not theory. If you don't agree, then you must test it to determine your opinion true or false; I cannot test your opinions for you.

>>8690427
Yes, the definition is accurate because language is able to capture meaning effectively. If that were not true, it would not exist.

No... it's not unfalsifiable, it's TRUE. It's objectively logically true, that is WHY you can't make it false. Not because it's impossible to prove a theory wrong, but rather because it is logically flawless - how do you make something false when there are no flaws.
It is as if I say "2 + 2 = 4", you respond with "no", I tell you to prove it isn't so and you tell me that it's not possible to make it false, but that doesn't make it true - that is accurate, it is the logic that makes it true, not the fact that it isn't false. It is also the logic that makes it not false.

If your opinion IS that I am engaging in sleight of hand, then it would be very easy for you to prove it by showing that I actually contradict myself, I have just hidden it cleverly. I don't believe you are capable of demonstrating that, and thus I believe your opinion is just that - unsubstantiated bullshit dribbling out of the mouth of someone who doesn't possess the mental capacity to know when another individual is more intellectually gifted than them so you assert what you think "isn't the point", then shut the fuck up? Clearly you think your opinion is worth something. I disagree. Prove it's worth something by attempting to show your working against mine, or fuck off buddy :)

>>8690451
It is not terrible for you specifically, but grief is pretty terrible and there is no way to know death is coming, really. Hope is pretty much inevitable. You can know that it WILL come, but it is quite difficult to prepare yourself for its actual arrival - I have not heard tales of men who have gone to their graves satisfied with themselves and all that they accomplished. I don't think it happens. The best you can ever hope for is an "oh well, what can you do" response to death. There IS something you can do - you can take control of the phenomenon.

>>8690470
uh no you're wrong and you can't prove me wrong

>>8690478
I can, it's easy. You provide no evidence for your claims - you do not reference how I am wrong, you just say that I am. My evidence that your opinion is wrong, is that you aren't even willing to attempt to provide evidence. I hypothesize this is because you lack the intellectual capabilities to do so.

>>8690514
one of my claims is that you can't read which i clearly demonstrated. given your inability to read it's no wonder you can't find evidence of my claims.

if you could read you'd see that i never even attempted to claim you were wrong. in fact i believe i've said 'yes' more times than i've said 'no'. but my point is not to prove you wrong outright because to do that i'd have to engage in the same kind of sophistry that you are, since that is the only way you can think. my point is that you should avoid this sophistry altogether. this is why i say that what i think isn't the point. i'm calling into question how you think, and your inability to think about how you think

what is logical is not necessarily true

>>8690514
>Evidence is good
Fuck off.

>>8690542
Clearly I can read, as I can write and respond to your inane posts.

You are basically attempting to say that a true answer is impossible, and because it's impossible, something that is logically flawless cannot be it, and asking people to attempt to disprove it is flawed because...?
What is logically flawless IS necessarily true. If a logical thing possesses literally no flaws, then that thing is objective fact regardless of your subjective opinion.

What is COMPLETELY logical IS in fact necessarily true, that's the fucking definition of logic - true or false, you don't get to pick which one you prefer once it tells you your answer.

>>8690546
Yeah uh, stay scientific there buddy :P

>>8690557
Science is the probably the worst philosophy to ever be developed

>>8690557
nice equivocational fallacy there mr logic. yeah i mean you literally can't read at all

>asking people to attempt to disprove it is flawed because...?

nice burden of proof mr logic

> that thing is objective fact regardless of your subjective opinion.

what? all snarks are green, gorbo is a snark, therefor gorbo is green

gorbo being green is OBJECTIVE FACT despite that snarks don't actually exist and there's no actual way to empirically prove that gorbo is green

>>8690568
I am not interested in your nonsense arguments attempting to attack my character. I don't care what you think about how I think, I don't care what you think of me. I want to know what you think of my ideas. If you cannot say they are wrong because X and Y, then they are not wrong no matter how many trivial attempts you may make to attack my ideas by attacking my character. If my method of determining my ideas is wrong, demonstrate that to be true, or just stop talking about it, because you are wasting your time - I will not agree until it is proven to me.

>>8690575
e x p o s e d

keep chasing those green snarks my mediocre friend

>>8690575
>proof exists
top kek

>>8690580
That is not proof, it's nonsense, but since you are as dumb as he is, I will explain for you.

Obviously I knew you were using hyperbole, but you are attempting to attack my character because you don't have the capabilities to attack my idea. If you use hyperbole that is too extreme, it's perfectly valid for people to point it out to you, so I did.

I do not need to prove it any further; my ideas are proof of themselves. The proof of my ideas is logic; they ARE logical. I am asking you to test they are logical for me, because I have ALREADY done so, and I think they are. Clearly, you do not.

I am not passing a burden of proof away from the origin, I have PROVEN it. I am attempting to show my proof to others, and you are attempting to say I haven't proven it. Look at the document again, proof is exactly what it is.

That argument isn't parallel to mine, you are attempting to put nonsense next to complicated theory and then asserting them to both be nonsense. I think maybe you think it true as well, since you seem to lack the intelligence to even attempt to understand on a fundamental level - all you seem able to do is defend your current state, existence.

>>8690596
I'm not him.

Proof doesn't exist, logic is only promoted for ideological reasons.

No one cares about your dogma, kiddo.

>>8690596
>complicated theory

>>8690602
I know you're not him but as you replied to my reply to him, clearly you were commenting on our conversation.

Prove with any method that a proof is impossible...
Oh wait, that premise is a contradiction, fucking moron.

Logic does not contradict itself. If you think that logic cannot find answers, then you don't understand logic. Clearly that is true, since you think "proof doesn't exist" is a reasonable thing to say - how could one EVER substantiate a claim that negates its own possibility of being true.

>>8690615
>it's a contradiction, so im le right xddddDDDD

>its CLEAR that logic is true because le LOGIC IS LE LOGICAL XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD]

>>8690637
If you demonstrate that another person contradicts their own argument during said argument, that does not necessarily make you right, but it instantly makes the other person wrong.

>>8690683
>it makes the other person wrong because le logic xddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd its OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

File: retard.png (331KB, 600x1081px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 600x1081px

>>8690694
It literally is... are you an idiot? Logic makes sense, you do not. I realize that you don't like that logic makes sense and you don't, so you probably try to live in a world where you make perfect sense but everything else doesn't. Good luck with that.

>A sound premise and sound reasoning leads to a sound conclusion.

What is a 'sound premise' or 'sound reasoning'? These ideas don't exist in formal logic. An argument can be sound, but a premise or reasoning can't. A premise can be true and the logic can be valid resulting in a sound argument. A sound premise and reasoning doesn't make sense.

>Thus, a premise without reasoning to support it can have no valid conclusion.

There is no logical connection between this step and the first.

>There is currently no empirical or logical evidence of a god or a purpose, therefore logically we should assume neither exist until new information presents itself.

Not necessarily true. The Bible can be read as a logically coherent document.

>My existence consists of attempting to understand my experience.
>The method for understanding is questioning - thus my experience consists of questioning.

Perhaps you mean 'thus my existence consists of questioning' rather than 'experience'. Otherwise you are saying that your existence consists of questioning your questioning, which is not implied by the Descartes quote.

And that assumes that the method for understanding is actually questioning. One can understand something without question.

This is far from being a flawless philosophy.

>>8690703
>it makes sense
>LOGIC IS RIGHT BECAUSE LE LOGIC XDDDD
Are you fucking stupid?

Holy shit rationalists are delusional.

>>8690706
A premise can be sound rather than true if there is no empirical evidence available on the subject - therefore, logic can make a premise sound, but not true.

Incorrect, the logical step is the inference of the reverse of the rule mentioned: If correct + correct = correct, then incorrect + correct = incorrect OR correct + incorrect = incorrect. This is logical, and it follows deductively from the first step.

No, it cannot, because there is a logical flaw in the premise - it assumes the existence of a god without flawlessly proving that logic.

I experience whatever my existence consists of; therefore if my existence consists of attempting to understand, then that is my experience.
Since my experience is attempting to understand, there is only one method for that - to question. If you believe there is an alternative method for understanding, please, enlighten the whole scientific fucking world...

>>8690714
Detail the delusion in trusting in logic? Give one example of a situation where the correct application of logic on ALL of the relevant information produces an incorrect result - there is NOT an example of this.

>>8690720
>science is right because it obviously is
Stop trolling.

>>8690723
Logic doesn't exist, so all applications are inherently wrong.
>incorrect result
Meaningless statement
>presupposing pragmatism
Very logical.

>>8690725
I am saying science is wrong, but the method of science is correct.
Unless you have an alternative superior method, you are currently not allowed to say there is a better one - you are lying, because you do not know it to be true. You simply suspect it might be.

>>8690728
Where is the proof of logic's nonexistence? If you can prove that premise is logical I will accept your argument. I have proven logic exists no matter what, you have not proven it doesn't.

>>8690729
>but the method of science is correct.
becuz i sed so
>Unless you have an alternative superior method,
More presuppositions of pragmatism.
>truth exists
Goodness, you are lazy.
>logic exists cuz i sed so
Not an argument.

You don't even know how logic works, you're just a dogmatist.

Literally, this thread is just full of idiots right now saying "but logic isn't everything..."

Okay?? hahahaha
If you believe that, fine. But if you are unable to prove it, and you will always be unable because you suppose proof does not exist by asserting that logic isn't correct, keep your beliefs to yourself, because no-one who IS logical gives a fuck about your supposition that it might not be. Cool story bro, that's accurate, it might not be, but it seems to be, so we should assume it is until we discover it isn't.

>>8690748
Not because I said so, because there is empirical evidence to that effect. Science thinks the method of science is the most effective method of discovering the truth, and we haven't made many changes to the method of science recently. If you think there are any fundamental changes left to be made to improve science, go make them yourself, but don't try to tell me science is wrong about its method simply because it might be possible.

>>8690751
>bro do my thing becuz i sed so
>more presuppositions of pragmatism
>>8690762
>empirical evidence
Not an argument
>more presuppositions of pragmatism
Go read more, you intellectual deadweight.

>>8690748
I used the processes of logic to prove that even when nothing exists, logic exists, therefore logic always exists. If you do not believe that is proof, demonstrate with my methods that it isn't proof.
None of these things are true because I said so. I am saying them, because they are true, and I believe them true because they are thoroughly supported by the evidence available.

If you argue not pragmatism, what is your argument? Lmao...

Truth exists, because I have proven it does, not because I say so. If I was lazy, would I have written 6 thousand words on a subject I was not required to? Would I be bothering to debate my ideas with people who clearly don't even understand the BASIC processes of reasoning?

Pragmatism is the method that is the most logical, that is WHY it is exercised by science. If you think there is a superior method, either reference it or stop saying Pragmatism isn't the sensible method to use.

>>8690778
>logic exists because logic exists
>use my proof to prove there is no proof
No argument, just nonsayings.

>logic is good because i said logic is good
Rationalism is an invalid philosophy, you know this right?

>logic is right because logic is right because logic is right because logic is right because logic is right...

>>8690787
No, logic exists because that it must, because data exists.
Data exists because it is its nature to exist, no matter what.

Rationalism is invalid how exactly? It is a combination of Rationalism and Empiricism that I employ, however because the question being addressed cannot have empirical evidence, I must employ only logic.

All previous philosophies are flawed, that's why we are still thinking about it. I have pointed out the flaws in a few of them at the bottom of my document.

>>8690810
Actually, almost. Logic is right because logic is right because logic exists because data exists, is more accurate.

>>8690817
>it must
>data exists
>data exists because it must
No argument here.
>data must exist because logic says so and logic must exist because logic says so, et cetera
Rationalism and Empiricism are both self-contradictory and circular.

Go troll somewhere where people don't actually understand how logic structures work.

>>8690827
No, they appear contradictory but are not. Moderate rationalism merely asserts that logic is superior to other forms of acquiring knowledge, it does not say empirical knowledge is not correct. Empiricism conflicts with Rationalism because that is exactly what it says - that empirical evidence is primary and everything else is secondary.

They are not self-contradictory, or circular. If you think that is true, demonstrate it to be.
They are flawed, because they do not account for all possibilities, but if you honestly think you can demonstrate that they are logically inconsistent with logic, then please, do so. I await your divine intellectual gifts of understanding, because clearly you think you understand better than most of the thinkers in history - so let's hear YOUR thoughts on exactly, and precisely where and how these philosophies are circular and self-contradictory?

>>8690720
Soundness relies on truth to be sound. At some point in determining a 'sound premise' there has to be one thing that is true. But I see that is beside the point and even though you are trying to explain formal logic you can get rid of step 1 entirely and it would not change anything.

>No, it cannot, because there is a logical flaw in the premise - it assumes the existence of a god without flawlessly proving that logic.

You might want to demonstrate this. If someone else has, use that argument.

>therefore if my existence consists of attempting to understand, then that is my experience.

Yes that is why I say you used the word 'experience' rather than 'existence'. But your existence also consists of action, as does your experience.

>If you believe there is an alternative method for understanding

Method? Like I said, one can understand something without question, without a method. Maybe you have some personal definition of 'understanding' or 'questioning' but that is better to be included in the document.

>>8690847
Yes, the truth it is relying on is that logic is consistent.

I did demonstrate that, it is contained in my step 8. I conclusively prove using logic that data IS, which is what the religious say - god IS. Well, I have proof, they do not.


Your existence and experience only result in action because of the attempt to understand - if that did not occur, neither would action. Therefore I am not defining everything that existence or experience entails, only the most basic part that it would be impossible without.

Give an example of an understanding that is arrived at without methodology of any kind, because I do not agree that's possible. To attempt to understand you must question something, even if you do not ask the questions aloud.

>>8690861
>Yes, the truth it is relying on is that logic is consistent.

Didn't you just say logic can make something sound but not true?

>I did demonstrate that, it is contained in my step 8

It should be demonstrated before you reach your conclusion then.

> Therefore I am not defining everything that existence or experience entails, only the most basic part that it would be impossible without.

Then you misuse the word 'consists'.

>To attempt to understand you must question something, even if you do not ask the questions aloud.

Language? Music? Unless you imply there is a 'questioning' within the microseconds of hearing information and the next word giving you more information on which to frame the first.

In this case you should explain what you mean by questioning as not to fall into equivocation.

>>8690880
Logic does not rely on logic to be consistent, it relies on the empirical evidence of the observation of logic. Logic has always been observed to be completely consistent, in every situation ever recorded. If an incorrect answer is arrived at, the processes of logic were used incorrectly, otherwise, a correct answer is produced. This has been consistently true for all of known history, therefore I use that empirical evidence and call it a truth or fact according to the evidence.

It is demonstrated before I read my conclusion... Maybe you didn't read the entire document carefully enough? Or maybe you thought a conclusion of a section or a proof was the complete theory... All the information is there.

I suppose that is true, what language would you suggest instead?

You understand language by questioning it in a complicated subconscious way - If this were not true, it would not be possible for you to realise what someone had said later on. Simply because you are not conscious of the process occurring in your attempt to understand does not indicate no method is being applied. Music is a recognition of pattern; there is no understanding involved unless a person is asking: "What specifics of music", in which case they ask What, at which point they are able to determine the individual components the music can be broken down into.

By 'question' I refer to the process of understanding by attempting to collect a predefined set of types of information. I think there are only 6 basic types of information: Who information, What information, Where information, When information, How information and Why information. If this is true, then these same types are being used subconsciously during all conscious attempts to understand simple information. If you think there are more than six types, enlighten me. If you do not, then I have described the method of understanding.

>>8690596
Why does, what causes, your system to value logic at all?

You say, logic tells us to do x

I am asking, who tells us to listen to logic, and why should/would we want to/have to?

What is wrong with being illogical?

What does it, would it, mean for logic to equal right?

How do we know that? What does right mean, or matter?

>>8690914
I think I value it because I have no choice.
I think, and the only method I have ever been able to determine for thinking is logic. Therefore, if I wish to continue to think, it makes sense to employ logic to make that thinking more effective.

You and I tell ourselves to listen to logic; when someone points out you are being illogical, and you agree, you stop your behaviour, or you are addicted in some way.

Logic says that being illogical is incorrect. That is what is wrong with it, it is provably incorrect.

That logic is correct symbolizes a meaning objective to your subjective experience. It demonstrates that although the world around you is NOT real and objective as we have always thought, you CAN objectively understand it as we have always tried.

Correct matters because it helps us to live. If you didn't do the things that were logical, and correct, you would have a difficult time continuing to exist period.

If you are able to suggest a method for continuing to think apart from logic, then I accept that logic may not necessarily matter.

I cannot, and therefore I conclude it MUST matter. I believe that is not my subjective experience, but the way that it objectively is for all of us.

>>8690914
>>8690927
One of my favourite responses to the question: Why does logic matter? or What is wrong with being illogical? is this:

Logic is consistency.
Life requires action.
If your actions relative to a task are inconsistent each time, you are bad at the task. Therefore, consistency is the property that enables excellence.
Thus, to be excellent at thinking your thinking must be consistent with itself, rather than consistent with your emotions.

>>8690907
>This has been consistently true for all of known history, therefore I use that empirical evidence and call it a truth or fact according to the evidence.

How is it then that logic can make something sound but not true? Soundness strictly relies on a truth to make something sound. One cannot conclude that, because logic is demonstrably consistent that all logical arguments are therefore true. Or that, at least, the 'truth' referenced in this argument applies to the same 'truth' required by a sound argument, which would be a fallacy.

>It is demonstrated before I read my conclusion

No, your conclusion is step 3 and you're talking about step 8. 3 comes before 8.

>Maybe you didn't read the entire document carefully enough?

I've barely got through the first few pages of the document because I'm already running into problems.

>I suppose that is true, what language would you suggest instead?

No idea, but this is only a symptom of a greater problem in the work -- it's just not very clear because the words are misleading. Maybe there is something here, I don't know, because I am not given any working definitions of terms.

>You understand language by questioning it in a complicated subconscious way

Not in a methodical way, which is how you use the term 'questioning'. And there is certainly an understanding when listening to music, or else it would seem incomprehensible.

>If you think there are more than six types, enlighten me. If you do not, then I have described the method of understanding.

Shouldn't you be asking if I think of 'questioning' in a different way rather than if I can name another type of information? What a strange conclusion.

>being used subconsciously during all conscious attempts

Hmm.

>>8690936
>Life requires action.

Other way around. Not sure that plants can be described as taking action.

>>8690927
Would it be more intelligent/logical for instead of everyone killing themselves, for everyone to just think logical?


and can you give me some examples, like day in the life of thought process of perfect logical thought?

Wake up: "I am awake, bpdy, rise"
get out of bed
walk out of room: "walk, walk, body imply walking for time x"
look out window:
enter kitchen: "hunger is detected"
decide what want for breakfast: "cereal or eggs, which is the more logical choice.... hmmm... is the activity of, hmmmm, logical?"

Or most logical, is absolutely no thoughts, only actions? Or absolutely know questions, only pure knowing, pure doing, ?

>>8690927
>Correct matters because it helps us to live.

But you suggest the most logical is asap death?

The truth of logic's consistency is proven by empirical evidence. Therefore, logic is consistent. That does not mean something which appears logical is necessarily true, but the logical deduction off the information that logic is consistent IS that complete and flawless logic which addresses all the relevant information IS consistently true and accurate, unless evidence is presented that logic is not consistent with logical principles.

No. I am able to assert there is no god or purpose because it is a FACT that there is no logical or empirical evidence on the existence of either. I don't need to give evidence of my explanation for what IS in Step 3, I only need to point out that their explanation has no supporting evidence that would be considered sufficient.

That is probably a problem on your end related to interpretation, but I acknowledge that a definition list at the start of the document could aid understanding and so I will endeavour to create one. I think my words are INCREDIBLY clear - the issue is not with my words but with the complexities and subtle differences in some of the concepts that I discuss.

Just because you are not conscious does not mean you do not apply a method. Your brain IS applying a method, or you would not know there was information at all.

Do you use questioning in a different way? I assert that questioning SHOULD be identical for all who attempt to understand, for there is no logical reason for a difference except that an individual misunderstands what understanding entails.

>>8690984
Sorry I mispoke - conscious, aware life.

>>8691040
Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive - to attempt to think in a truly logical way will inevitably result in your decision to act upon death as the logical conclusion of life, now and forever.

There are no every-day examples except a dedicated attempt to understand using logic. That is the most logical thing you CAN do, and once understanding has been achieved, the most logical thing to do is cease attempting to understand.

>>8691042
Correct. It is an undeniable fact that being correct helps us live, so we may not live unless we attempt to be correct. Therefore, to live is to attempt to be smart enough to die, or to die accidentally along the way.

>>8690975
The first reply in >>8691049 is for you

>>8691049
>to attempt to think in a truly logical way will inevitably result in your decision to act upon death

how/why do you figure this?

Is it because you want to die of boredom, repetition?

The logic we have to experience is too simple?

You say: logic is correct. logic is required to exist. Using logic correctly equals death.

How can logic support life, but equal death/

If logic is necessary and correct for life, why would it not be logical to use logic to support life, it is known death comes anyway (would it be logical to seek immortality?)

why not use logic, to become logic, to extend the experience of logic, because logic is correct, and it is logical to desire to experience correctness?

What does the word value mean to you?

You do not think anything is cool or interesting or good or valuable or enjoyable or special or impressive about life and its potentials?

Is this philosophy more based on your experience as yourself, with not enjoying your existence, rather than your knowledge of how others should perceive themselves and their potential?

If you hypothetically were a mortal spirit next to another in the spirit world, and you were asked "either you cease existing now and forever, or you can exist as a human on Earth" you would rather not and never exist, than ever have the opportunity to potentially experience something beyond nothing?

>>8691049
I want to go back to this again:
>A premise can be sound rather than true if there is no empirical evidence available on the subject - therefore, logic can make a premise sound, but not true.

This is false. By definition a sound conclusion requires a true premises. The way you are talking now suggests that is something is logically valid it is therefor true, and can then be the basis of a truthful premise in order to establish a sound argument. This makes no sense. You shouldn't need to explain formal logic as the first step in your work, and if you do you can't misuse terms like soundness, truth, and validity.

> I don't need to give evidence of my explanation for what IS in Step 3, I only need to point out that their explanation has no supporting evidence that would be considered sufficient.

You're not pointing out anything though you're just saying something that has not been demonstrated. You have to give someone a reason to believe you if it is a crucial step in the flow of your logic. It's certainly not as clear a certainty as 'logic is consistent' which I have no trouble accepting.

>I think my words are INCREDIBLY clear

I would think after conflating existence and experience you wouldn't be as confident in the clarity of your work.

>Just because you are not conscious does not mean you do not apply a method.

I think you would struggle to find any definition of 'method' that does not require conscious thought. In any case your assertion is far from being observable fact. You would have to at least acknowledge Phenomenology in some way if you were to provide a working definition of questioning, understanding, etc. Sure, the process of questioning is probably the same in everyone, but to say that your model is accurate even though it describes an unconscious process that no one knows but you do because you've worked it out with logic (even though your idea is that thought is illogical, so too then shouldn't unconscious understanding?) does not make a convincing argument.

Also what about the question of whether something exists or not? Not why, or how, but whether.

>>8691135
No, this is sound reasoning. The idea is that a premise can be SOUND but not necessarily TRUE if the premise is consistent with the principles of logic. The thing that makes it inherently TRUE that the premise is sound is that logic is consistent. That is TRUE, because it can be empirically proven. Logic is accurate and consistent and thus a premise which is consistent with logic can be considered sound and merits an argument built from it regardless of whether or not it is inherently true as long as it is not demonstrated that the premise is false. A premise is defined as a hypothetically true thing from which an argument for a conclusion is built; naturally it predicates on the TRUTH of the premise however the truth of this premise is impossible to determine according to the consistent method of logic due to the inherent impossibility of acquiring empirical evidence on the subject of whether or not this existence is objective and physical. Therefore, we must rely on the logical evidence provided if that evidence is indeed consistent with logic in every way imaginable, and thus the objectively logical conclusion with respect to all information possible.

I am saying something that is easily demonstrable; I am defining for the reader that logic easily determines with all available logical and empirical evidence that the logical assumption is that there is neither a god nor a purpose until sufficient evidence is presented. I am not doing anything which requires proving; they are. I am simply pointing out that if you think god exists, stop now because you clearly aren't using logic correct. It makes people who don't get science stop there instead of wasting everyone's time, or they comprehend the truth and continue on the path of enlightenment.

I don't believe that mistakes indicate a tendency for flawed representation of meaning through language; rather I've always known my ability to communicate to be one of my most valuable assets in this world and have had my excellent communication skills affirmed by peers and educators alike. I am easy to understand - easier than most.

Sorry, that last quote I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was this: "Just because you are not conscious of the method being applied does not mean you do not apply a method subconsciously."

Two things objectively exist, data and logic.

>>8690838
>it isn't because logic is logical xdddd
You're fucking illiterate, by the way.

SAYING LOGIC IS LOGICAL SO LOGIC IS RIGHT BECAUSE LOGIC IS LOGICAL AND EMPIRICISM IS CORRECT BECAUSE LOGIC IS LOGICAL SO EMPIRICISM PROVES LOGIC IS LOGICAL
is contradictory.

Intellectual deadweight.
>>8691049
EMPIRICISM PRESUPPOSES LOGIC
SO LOGIC IS LOGICAL SOLELY BY THE MEANS THAT LOGIC IS LOGICAL

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS DO NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY.
>>8691668
>They objectively exist becuz i sed so and totally aren't presuppositions

>>8691074
I have demonstrated it to be true. If the basic part of existence is about understanding, then when understanding is proven to be complete, existence ends as a result of the logicality of that conclusion.
No, this has nothing to do with subjective experience. Read my FAQ linked at the bottom of my document. This is objective application of consistent logic.

Huh? Too simple?

What you are describing is that something seems illogical. That does not necessarily indicate that it is illogical; I assert that if you follow the logic methodically from start to finish, the only conclusion possible is that thinking is illogical now that understanding has been reached. Even though I agree it SEEMS illogical when you do not understand it, that does not necessarily mean that is true.
Logic supports life because it is the method for the active maintenance of conscious life.
No... It would not be logical to do any of these things. If you think it would be, demonstrate that to be so - I have demonstrated the objective conclusion of logic is to die. If you disagree you need to demonstrate a more advanced answer than mine or demonstrate a flaw in mine.

Of course I do, I love it, it's sick and awesome but that doesn't necessarily make it RIGHT or SENSIBLE.

No, it is not based on my subjective experience as I said in my above comment.
My FAQ: https://1drv.ms/w/s!AshN1BJh7gg5lnRXvcV663VHR1Ot


Correct, as long as I understand what this existence was: attempting to understand this existence. Because then existence here is pointless from the start.

>>8691674
I pretty much think you are just mentally retarded at this stage so I'm gonna stop replying to anything and everything you say :P

>>8690308
Logic is not what gives understanding. Logic is a formal system used to accurately show truth values when some premises are said to make a conclusion true. There is a necessity for emirical/phenomenological experience. You can look at any formal argument forever but if you have no universe of discourse or way describing what your predicates are as well as an extensional understanding of the language used to describe the predicates, then you just know how to manipulate the system in an abstract sense. Understanding, however, does not abstract this far from what we would call reality/existence. We must have a way of experiencing existence to talk about it meaningfully rather than just accurately using language and logic to formulate valid and well formed statements in formal systems.

Tldr: you ignore experience

>>8691680

According to you;

From the perspective of humans, logic only equals immediate death.

Yes? There is nothing, to humans, logic equals besides instant death?

For if there were multiple elements of what logic equaled: a,b, c, d, e, f, instant death

Then there would seem to be no precise element absolutely causing the human to be forced to choose the latter, out of all the options of what logic is to be human.

Either you believe logic only equals instant death, or you do not. If you do not, then you must not believe it logical for a human who is logical to instantly kill themselves.

Is there any possible hypothetical theoretical existence that would not be pointless? (and if you cant think of one, does that mean there definitely absolutely is not?) (would being immortal change things?)

The basic part of existence is first and foremost existence itself, understanding is a relative tool existence uses to further itself.

Understanding is proven to be complete...meaning you know all the truths of eternal reality?

So lets imagine a person existed all alone in a realm, with just a triangle, square and sphere, you are pretty much saying, once they get tired of their toys, existing is pointless, its boring, I want to go home now?

>I assert that if you follow the logic methodically from start to finish, the only conclusion possible is that thinking is illogical now that understanding has been reached.

Existence is desired, why is desire illogical? Thinking aids existence. Why is desiring to exist illogical? Why is desiring to know and do and feel and create and enjoy illogical?

You never answered what you think of the term 'value'.

>>8691680
I think consciousness originally and continually was able to even exist, and grow in power and ability, precisely and only for its ability to be 'illogical'...

Free will. Everything is determined. Causal. if a then b, if b then c. Everything is logic. But, the development of the mind, was the development to at least psuedoly escape causality, thus at least psuedoly escape pure physical causal logicality.

Because no thing outside the minds awareness, is forced to choose in a single expanse of moment, a, b, c, d, e, and/or there could be relatively logical arguments for choosing either, perhaps this is related to fuzzy logic.

>>8691680
Existence equals yes, 1
Death equals no, 0

I being, yes, 1, utilize my essence to remain, yes, 1

Because being 0 is eventually promised to me, and I believe in the potential for a positive relationship to quantity and quality.

0 is promised anyway, I would be an idiot to experience 0 as soon as possible, when there is the chance to experience the eternal opposing rarity of not.

>>8691685
>ur retarded for seeing the flaws in my trolling

Rationalist is truly believing in their holy dogma of logic to the point of mental illness. Everything is fucking contradiction, being both logical and illogical at the same time.

So because you are logically consistent you must be correct? Logic is a tool embedded in reason, not a way of determining object reality. Have you bridged the is ought gap? How did logic give you that other than that logicall,y logic can't give you the answer? Are there no barriers to you as a human, to be able to cut through the limits of your own subjective experience? This just seems like hot air ultimately. Logics can justify anything really

>>8693218
>i live somewhere with only green leaves
>I conclude that all leaves are green because my data says so
>therefore, all leaves universally are green

>>8693310
I would see it as more of accepting that all leaves a green where you are, so there's no reason to think about leaves being a different color. But this is a retarded mindset

>>8693319
It's a bad example, but essentially what it reduces to is modeling all things under a geocentric perspective and claiming it to be objective.

>>8693326
I completely agree

>>8693218
The problem is he can't distinguish between soundness and validity because he is unfamiliar with formal logic.

>>8691668
>The idea is that a premise can be SOUND but not necessarily TRUE

This is a contradiction. Soundness = truth + logic. That's the literal definition of a sound argument and a fundamental facet of formal logic.

>the logical assumption is that there is neither a god nor a purpose until sufficient evidence is presented.

So you are just dismissing offhand that Aquinas is wrong? Since your argument relies so heavily on their being logically or evidently no god or purpose one would think you'd spend at least some time addressing past efforts to logically conclude these things exist, but here there is nothing. One should conclude from this that the author is not very well-read in philosophy, especially when this leads directly on from a misreading of formal logic in the first two steps.

>I don't believe that mistakes indicate a tendency for flawed representation of meaning through language

Logically one can conclude that if there is one mistake then there may be many more. And in fact there are at least two glaring mistakes in the first page of steps.

>does not mean you do not apply a method subconsciously

Again, I'm not sure you can find a definition of 'method' that implies it can be a subconscious application of thought.

>Two things objectively exist, data and logic.

But you arrived at this through questioning, which means that you would have to go through the question 'whether'. But this is not the point I'm making anyway.

>>8693393
>>8691668
>Again, I'm not sure you can find a definition of 'method' that implies it can be a subconscious application of thought.

I'll also add that 'method' also implies a logical system, which is a contradiction that thought is irrational if it can subconsciously apply a logical method.

>>8693310
I don't know if you are disagreeing with me or not but yeah that's the kind of thing being purely "logical" gets you into. As long as all ideas presented don't logically contradict you can use it to justify any position, that's why you need to understand the facts of the claims in this logical inquiry. Facts are seperate from logical "truths"

A demonstration of how to write a proof. We will prove that the OP does not believe that it is illogical to possess the will to live. We will do this by contradiction.

Premise 1: If a person believes they are acting illogically, they will attempt to cease the illogical behaviour.
Premise 2: Any human is capable of losing the will to live.
Premise 3: A person who has no will to live will attempt to stop living.
Premise 4: The OP is capable of committing suicide.
Premise 5: OP is still alive.

Supposition: The OP believes it is illogical for him to possess the will to live.

The OP either has the will to live, or does not have the will to live.

If the OP has the will to live, then he either wishes to lose the will to live, but cannot, or he does not wish to lose the will to live. By premise 2, the former cannot be the case. By supposition 1 and premise 1, OP must attempt to cease in the illogical behaviour of "possessing the will to live". Therefore, he does not wish to possess the will to live. We must therefore conclude that the OP does not possess the will to live.

If the OP does not have the will to live, then, by premise 3, the OP must attempt to end his life. By premise 4, the OP is capable of ending his life. Yet, by premise 5, the OP has not ended his life. Therefore, the OP must possess the will to live.

As a result, we have a contradiction. This can only be the case if one of the premises is wrong, or the supposition is wrong.

So, which is it OP? Which one of the premises is wrong? Or is the supposition wrong?

>>8691705
If logic is not what gives you understanding, what is your alternative proposal for the origin of understanding? Any attempt to understand MUST employ a logic of SOME kind, even if that method is not formally considered; it will be selected regardless of acknowledgement. Therefore, a methodology implies an inherent logic to order the actions in question, again regardless of whether or not that order is acknowledged consciously by the being in question.
We do have a way of experiencing existence: We are theoretical beings experiencing a theoretical existence. That does not make it any realer than a video game character is in the context of their storyline. This universe is simply one example of how existence COULD be, if something ever did exist physically. That fact means that just because you exist (since it is theoretical) is not necessarily a good reason to perpetuate said existence.

>>8692035
Logic is the precise element that makes humans choose to latter, because logic actually does not have options when you have determined that you have ALL possible information - there is a definite answer. If we could be definite we had all the information about math, we would be able to say definitely that 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective fact.

Read my fucking article before you try to argue - it's pointless to attempt to tell me my ideas are wrong when you have not attempted to completely understand them. Yes, there are a few iterations of theoretical existence wherein the conditions of the existence of life in the respective universes are kind enough with respect to the nature of that life to allow that life to perpetually exist beyond the understanding of the nature of existence. This is because there are two factors required to confirm the objective undesirability of the conditions of the existence of life to a reasonable extent (as long as those conditions are each justifiably unreasonable) - and I am able to identify two conditions about the existence of life in this conceptual universe that are undeniably objectionable - Now that understanding has been achieved, perpetuation of our species is TRULY pointless - life has one purpose, and for that purpose it employs a method. Life exists to survive, and to excel at survival it employs understanding. Our species has defeated survival in a very clear way; and now that we have conquered understanding there is a true void of reasons to continue.
The second fact that confirms this objective undesirability is the nature of existence in an entropic universe - it ends up being unfair in a majority of the experiences because fairness is an unnatural perception. This is something that has always and will always result in human suffering, anxiety and despair. The world is unfair, and existence is TRULY pointless, therefore objectively it should stop unless you have a better explanation than me, that proves we are not done understanding existence.

>>8692035
>Understanding is proven to be complete...meaning you know all the truths of eternal reality?

>So lets imagine a person existed all alone in a realm, with just a triangle, square and sphere, you are pretty much saying, once they get tired of their toys, existing is pointless, its boring, I want to go home now?

Yes, I think it is pretty undeniable that eventually, over the course of eternity, they would get bored and want to change their experience - if the ONLY method for true change was to stop, then they would in fact stop.

I have shown why desire is illogical. Desire arises from emotions which are your body's unconscious needs. These needs are logical for your body's unconscious goal: survival, and thus 'existence', however your conscious mind can and DOES have other goals. I believe one of the goals of every human is to attempt to be logical, so if it TRULY is logical to stop thinking, then every human will attempt to understand and execute that idea.

>>8692047
Read my above comments, I dispel this notion.
You can use your mind to escape this fact; it is possible. It is illogical, and it makes you a stupid and illogical person and thus not at all a philosopher - you are reduced to a base, emotional slave of a being, because you are unable to use logic beyond your feelings when it really comes down to it. You think you are 'consistent enough' with logic, and there is honestly no such thing. If you are not completely consistent, then you are lying to yourself about your logicality, because it is an absolute state of logical or non-logical (aka emotional)

>>8692074
Inaccurate, you are currently a part of
0 = !{{1}?}
When you die, you return to being a part of
0 = !{0 = infinity}, however there are many manifestations of the latter as the former contained inside the latter. This is defined in Set Theory as the idea of a true master set, which contains every other set that could possibly exist - due to this concept, there is nothing that this Set could exclude, and thus there is no uncertainty present.

>>8692206
Unless you have a good REASON that logic is flawed, shut up, because that is literally just a willfully stupid thing to say and think.

>>8693218
Logic can only justify logicality when it is used in an objectively flawless way. Logic is not a tool embedded in reason; it IS reason. If you think reason has a more basic part than logic, please give your REASONing for that.
Logically has provided the answer, but logic will never be able to provide a way to circumvent the true objectivity of some facts, because of their nature as true and objective. Logic cannot defeat 'reality', it merely structures what is, however if the culmination of the perfect structure of logic results in a complete conclusion that requires no more logic, then THAT is the case.
Logic is the ULTIMATE tool in the task of cutting through subjective experience, so yes I believe that if you are dedicated it is possible to defeat subjectivity.

>>8693310
>>8693319
>>8693326
>>8693333
>>8693354
Incorrect, all around. If you have extensively searched other places and found leaves that are not from your origin that are consistent with observations from your origin, then it is reasonable to assume that that observation could be true for all leaves, and the more evidence that agrees with that possibility the more it becomes a probability; not objective fact because there is empirical evidence that could be missing that could disprove it, however more and more probable based on two factors: the growing amount of evidence consistent with a hypothesis (for example, logic is consistent and logic is the most superior form of acquiring knowledge), and the shrinking possibility of information relevant to the question being missing as the solutions to the question become more and more complete. Logically, it can be possible to have a completely correct answer with respect to all possible information. That is what I propose I have arrived at.

>>8693393
If soundness = truth + logic then truth = there is no empirical evidence available, therefore rely on any other evidence available, and logic = flawless application of logic with respect to all possible information produces a flawless result.

I don't agree with your conclusions about me; I think it is a very common belief in philosophies that are (at least) MOSTLY consistent with logic that god and purpose logically cannot be currently said to exist, and thus for the sake of talking about logical hypotheticals should be said not to exist.
I think the principles of first order logic disallow a truth statement about the existence of either a god or a purpose currently, and thus said truth statement is automatically. What proof of that do you want; shall I demonstrate AGAIN?

There MAY be many more, but if you believe that true then demonstrate them. I have not admitted any of the flaws demonstrated to be of a critical nature - you have determined that my meaning is unclear in some places of my explanation. That does not indicate logically that my theory is necessarily flawed - for that proposition to be true, a critical flaw would need to be determined in my application of logic, rather than the way an unclear meaning can compromise the certainty of a proof - I agree, this does not indicate a true flaw in the proof itself, but rather its current representation.

Method is any application of action, for action inherently requires a method of some kind, and the method for the determination of specific action MUST be something - I think it is consistently demonstrable that this 'something' is logic.

Huh?? whether?

>>8693398
Thought is not irrational in nature, the conclusion of thinking is that thinking is concluded. Therefore, continuing to think after the clear objective of thinking is undeniably achieved is irrevocably irrational and thus objectively wrong.
Thinking within the context of a consistent and concentrated attempt to survive is logical.

>>8693415
This is only accurate if there is information that could possibly be missing from the logical equation being performed.

>>8693678
It is illogical for me to possess the will to live, but the theoretical reality that is this universe is that I am bound to a body which theoretically possesses the will to live, therefore as my theoretical being I perceive that theoretical will to live and it attempts to act upon my thinking patterns.

The reason that I am not dead currently although I believe it to be objectively logically flawless and thus THE subjective representation of the objective facts, I recognize and respect the inherent difference that exists between my subjective beliefs about objective fact and the current objective reality of facts (determined by the methods of science) and therefore, until my subjective beliefs are confirmed by the subjective perception of the objective reality of facts - aka science - it is not objectively logical to act upon said subjective beliefs.

Therefore, although it appears logical that I would be dead now, to assert that assumes that I am irrational in order to neutralize the emotional conflict that results from the pointlessness of my continued personal existence. I have determined that the only way to make my life feel not pointless until my theory can be determined a fact or flawed by science is to attempt to prove it to be true, and thus share my understanding with all who exist. Thus, I currently am the only person who can objectively be said to have a purpose - I am attempting to confirm the objective nature of reality so that I may OBJECTIVELY justify my actions upon that fact rather than subjective based on my beliefs about it BEING fact - something which apparently all of humanity intends to disagree with.
The problem is, I don't think any of humanity has a possible method of disagreeing with my theory is their attempt at disbelief is consistent with the methods of science. I have determined all possible information and accounted for it, therefore my conclusions are sound AND valid.

>>8694211
Logic is causality.

Logic exists without life.

Material causally obeying physical laws is logic.

Material exists.

Materials existence is logic.

Humans are material, and obey causal logical physical laws.

Humans existence is logical.

Humans causally continuing to exist is logical.

>>8694324
Only while the purpose of that existence is incomplete. Once understanding of what IS has been achieved, action on what IS can finally be taken - the simple fact that until now the action we have been taking is inaction due to an incomplete attempt at an answer, does not necessarily indicate that a complete answer that demands action is impossible to produce or that continuing to exist past a logically determined action to stop existing COULD ever be logical, in any non-emotionally justified way (emotional justification inherently = illogical in some way, it implies subjectivity).

>>8694308
>Therefore, although it appears logical that I would be dead now, to assert that assumes that I am irrational in order to neutralize the emotional conflict that results from the pointlessness

How would you feel, what would you do and say, if 1 or more kids came across your philosophy and killed themselves because you told them it was the right thing to do?

>>8694346
I would feel that I had done nothing wrong because I believe it to be fact. It is only if that occurs and then it is demonstrated that it is not fact that I would consider myself accountable, and if that occurs then I consent to be held accountable for that conclusion.

>>8694343
>Only while the purpose of that existence is incomplete.

What is the purpose of material existing?

What is the purpose of logic existing?

What is logic?

How much logic is there?

Give me an example of a logical purpose.

Give me an example of a purposeful conscious being.

Give me an example of a logically purposeful conscious being. (in your hypothetical ideal world/universe).

(or, is it eternally impossible for consciousness to logically exist?)(in other words, every possible consciousness in all of eternity cannot in any way be logical, because it exists?) (logic can only be non concious. Logic = highest value. Logic = only value. non logic is a silly poopy head for existing)

>>8694353
>I believe it to be fact

but you have not killed yourself because you are not sure if it is a fact (and/or all your muh virtue correctness is the only thing that matters, humans cannot possibly be correct etc, but the temptations of the flesh keep me trapped, im not strong enough to kill myself because as much as I know logic and know that it equals 100% important and everything else -100%, and my whole philosophy is everyone should kill themselves, all of the sudden, I have infinite emotions a picosecond which deny my own passionately held and propagated theory)

but lets consider its also because you are not sure it is a fact, following you state there is a possibility science will over turn it; so that is a perfect place to attempt to be unbiased and objective, and offer any arguments or doubts you potentially have of your theory, hypothetically how could would science go about over turning it, what would satisfy your perception of a falsification?

>>8683638
That's ok OP, I already have a paperback of The Ego and It's Own

>>8694375
It is not material, but rather theoretical data that we perceive as material.
Logic is necessitated as the structure of the data that objectively exists.
^ that is what logic is.
All logical constructs exist theoretically as a result of the fact that logic is manifested objectively which is a result of the perpetual objective existence of data.

If logic (the order of data) exists in a subjective perspective the only logical reasoning for that case is to order the data of that perspective until it is SO ordered that it is obvious what the interpretation MUST be.

A logically purposeful conscious being is one which is dedicated to understanding completely, recognizing complete understanding if it occurs and acting on that understanding when it occurs.

If there are circumstances in which it is logical to perpetuate conscious existence, that is what will occur. Since infinite possibilities exist in theoretical space, some of these MUST represent the conditions described which would be sufficient for the perpetual existence of consciousness, as opposed to the natural state which is awareness.

>>8694389
I acknowledge that just because I think I am completely correct does not necessarily ever make that certain - it is only through completely consistent confirmation of this proposition that it could ever be considered a subjective representation of objective facts.

There are two conditions that could overturn my theory:
I assert that I account for all possible information relating specifically to the subject of existence. If that is not true, then you may show this in a proof of some kind, to flaw my theory fundamentally.
I assert that there is no other possible theory now that all information has been accounted for. If that is untrue, it is possible to prove that case through the method of presenting another equivalent theory; equivalent in the sense that it similarly addresses all possible information available and presents an alternative line of reasoning or conclusion that is logically flawless.

If either of these two conditions are met I will unconditionally accept that my philosophy is incorrect, and attempt to repair the area of my reasoning that is flawed.

>>8694395
OC comment my friendo :)

>>8694269
>therefore rely on any other evidence available

But a valid argument isn't a truth. You can't make a valid argument and then claim its validity means it is true and therefor the combination of a valid argument with more valid logic results in a sound argument.

Your argument derives from a 'truth' that is not a priori (the process of questioning) and requires far more evidence than simple reasoning in order to be a posteriori. It is not a truth from which you can make a sound argument. Your argument may be valid but without any evidence it will not be sound. Without true premises the conclusion drawn from the argument will not be true.

>thus for the sake of talking about logical hypotheticals should be said not to exist.

Demonstrate it then. "If you believe that true then demonstrate it."

>There MAY be many more, but if you believe that true then demonstrate them.
>That does not indicate logically that my theory is necessarily flawed.

You miss the point. My argument is that it is hard to tell whether there is a flawless theory because it's too difficult to read if you are conflating terms or showing a misunderstanding of how formal logic functions.

>Method is any application of action

Is it? Find any definition which agrees with you, for the third(?) time. Do the synonyms give you a sense of unconscious action? procedure, technique, system, practice, routine, modus operandi, method of working, formula, process, means, medium, mechanism; tack, approach, way, line, course of action, route, road; strategy, tactic, plan, recipe, rule

>the conclusion of thinking is that thinking is concluded

This isn't true. Experience is ongoing.

> Step 3.There is currently no empirical or logical evidence of a god or a purpose, therefore logically we should assume neither exist until new information presents itself.

Can I also say this, then? "There is currently no evidence that life has no purpose. Therefore, logically, we should assume life has a purpose until new information is presented."

I also propose that the purpose of life is to shitpost. This is flawless logic, so it must be true.

> Every human being is THE soul, and the soul is defined by me as the idea of you attempting to understand the idea of every idea from every perspective ever possible so that it can become the idea of every idea.

Why the fuck does my soul want to become the idea of every idea? That sounds very exhausting, and my soul is fucking lazy.

>>8694308

Okay. Notice you were able to follow the logic? Each step was sequential, and only relied on previous steps, and premises.

I'll admit, I left out one premise. Something either exists, or does not exist. e.g. "The OP either has the will to live, or does not have the will to live."

But, there is no way that, if you accept all the premises, the supposition, and the previous steps, that you can deny the current step.

Your "disproof", which is a proof of a negation, does not follow this at all. Step 9 is literally just a proof of something you said in step 8. When you said it in step 8, you need to either prove it then and there, or have proven it beforehand. There may be something in this, but it's a meaningless mess at the moment.

Go look at proofs in scientific or philosophical literature, follow the same structure. My example is hopefully a good starting point, although I'm not entirely certain. You even agree, although indirectly, that you accept my reasoning, but reject my premises. This is fine! Denying a premise is a simple but efficient way to deny the conclusion! A proof is simply a set of statements that each logically follow from the previous statements, plus the initial premises. This means that there are two ways to show that a proof is flawed.
1) Show that one or more of the premises is flawed, or
2) Show that one of the steps does not logically follow from the combination of the previous steps + the premises.

As stands, a lot of your statements do not follow from the previous statements + premises.

(Bonus: If you are using a proof by contradiction, you have an addition premise, called the supposition, that is the negation of the thing you are trying to prove. Other proof structure may give you additional premises that you get to use.)

I am by no means a bookworm. I've only just recently discovered recreational reading. I dont consider myself to be a strong reader. That being said, i had a very hard time reading this. I got through two pages, reading quite slowly, but still couldnt wrap my head around what he was saying. Do any of you guys ever experience this? or am i a bit retarded?

>>8694683
Hi. Poster directly above you. Yeah, the whole thing is a mess. It... might prove something? But the current version is just too messy to prove anything.

File: method.png (13KB, 635x198px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 635x198px

>>8694431
I make a valid argument, and then demonstrate that my valid argument contains all the information that could possibly be available, which makes it undeniably the truth about the topic in question as long as it IS valid.
The evidence that works in conjunction with the logical proof is the logical impossibility of another type of evidence, EVER, no matter how hard or long you looked or tried.

Since empirical evidence is impossible according to logic, the argument is both valid and true. Valid because it is consistently objectively logical, and true because logic is the only evidence POSSIBLE.

I have demonstrated it... That's exactly what the proof is about - demonstrating it.

I do not assert that it is flawless with 100% certainty, I merely assert that it's my belief that it's flawless and that it's my belief that it is almost certainly 100% flawless, on a foundational and conceptual level even if not in terms of subjective representation at this point.

Attached is the definition of method. You will note that it reads ESPECIALLY a systematic or established one. Therefore, not necessarily. I would argue that a non-systematic non-established method would be known as an unconscious method for an attempt to perform what are generally conscious actions.

No, I don't agree. It won't be ongoing when this is known to be fact.

>>8694670
I accept that maybe I need to reposition step 9 into the middle of step 8; that's a valid criticism. However this does not hurt the overall validity of the argument, merely it suggests that the current formatting of the argument is not consistent with the conventions that must be adhered to for something to be considered a formal proof.

I don't agree with your assessment that a lot of my steps do not follow. If you truly believe this, please detail for me exactly which ones do not follow and exactly why you believe they do not follow.

>>8694683
>>8694721
The problem is that the topic is very complicated, so unless you have put significant effort into understanding the differences between some of the definitions of the words being used its difficult to ascertain exactly what is being described. I intend to repair this problem by adding a glossary of terms and their definitions. My apologies.

>>8694643
No, you cannot. You may use logic to assume something doesn't exist if there is no evidence that it does, but the opposite is not a valid application of logic. If it were, philosophy would have ended with religion.
It's not flawless logic; your premise or reasoning to prove that as a logical conclusion would be flawed - otherwise, demonstrate.

Because the soul is the idea of awareness; by its nature it is aware - it has no choice about that. It is aware of all information, but it has not learnt to understand the information so it is attempting to, through you and I and every aware piece of life.

>>8694824
>No, you cannot. You may use logic to assume something doesn't exist if there is no evidence that it does, but the opposite is not a valid application of logic. If it were, philosophy would have ended with religion.
Got it. In that case, "There is currently no empirical or logical evidence of a country called France, therefore, logically we should assume France does not exist."

I mean, sure, some people say they've been to France, but some people say they've spoken to God. Obviously, if we can say one group is full of lying arseholes, then we can say the other is as well, right?

I also propose that the reason people made up France is because they wanted to scare people out of surrendering.

>It's not flawless logic; your premise or reasoning to prove that as a logical conclusion would be flawed - otherwise, demonstrate.
Sure. Life is shit without shitposting. Life is good with shitposting. Obviously, this means that our purpose in life is to shitpost. Find the flaw.

>Because the soul is the idea of awareness; by its nature it is aware - it has no choice about that. It is aware of all information, but it has not learnt to understand the information so it is attempting to, through you and I and every aware piece of life.

My soul has no choice but to want to become the idea of every idea? Also, why would the idea of awareness be aware? 4chan isn't the idea of 4chan, it's the website. If I am not connected to the internet, I can't think really really hard and end up on 4chan. Because the idea of 4chan isn't the same as the actual website.

>>8694840
If you have not proven it to yourself with either logical or empirical evidence that you consider sufficient, then yes it is perfectly logical to assume France does not exist. It might not be practical - there IS logical and empirical evidence that it doesn't exist, you just don't know about it - however it is a sound conclusion until you discover the information that makes it non-sound.

Life is still life without shitposting. Therefore, the most basic part of life is not shitposting. Therefore, life's purpose cannot be to shitpost, for without shitposting, life can still be.
There is the flaw.

It is the nature of the concept of awareness that it is aware. 4chan is a manifestation of the idea of 4chan, and 4chan doesn't have a nature, humans have given 4chan a function but without humans it does nothing.
The idea of 4chan isn't the same as the actual website only because you are currently contained inside another idea, and thus you are currently bound by the rules of that idea. If you were not, and were thus free inside the container of this idea - the theoretical universe, you could indeed think really hard and end up on 4chan; the rules of that space are whatever you decide they are, but they must agree with logic to manifest in some way.

>>8694846
there is logical and empirical evidence that it DOES exist*, you just don't know about that evidence.

>>8694807
>I make a valid argument, and then demonstrate that my valid argument contains all the information that could possibly be available, which makes it undeniably the truth about the topic in question as long as it IS valid.

No that's not how it works. Do some basic reading on formal logic please. I've tried to explain it to you but you either don't get it or you choose to ignore it. You do not make up the rules for how logic functions.

>Since empirical evidence is impossible according to logic

Then you should rely on a priori truth. But you don't, you speculate on how the mind operates. You invent a system for how it works without actually proving it is true, which you can't do, because the premises aren't true.

>I have demonstrated it...

You haven't. You have not proved there is no god or purpose. You haven't even attempted to approach any logical argument that asserts there is a god or purpose. Have you read Kant? I'd say the categorical imperative is the first "flawless philosophy."

>I would argue that a non-systematic non-established method would be known as an unconscious method

aka an oxymoron.

>It won't be ongoing when this is known to be fact.

But it is ongoing. You yourself demonstrate this -- your willingness to adjust your philosophy if evidence arises (in the case of evidence for god or purpose) or willingness to revise if anyone can point out where the flaws are. So is the system concluded or is it open to new evidence?

>>8694846
>If you have not proven it to yourself with either logical or empirical evidence that you consider sufficient, then yes it is perfectly logical to assume France does not exist. It might not be practical - there IS logical and empirical evidence that it doesn't exist, you just don't know about it - however it is a sound conclusion until you discover the information that makes it non-sound.

Then clearly we cannot safely assume there is no deity or purpose. If we use the same reasoning, we find that all countries do not exist if we have not visited them.

>Life is still life without shitposting. Therefore, the most basic part of life is not shitposting. Therefore, life's purpose cannot be to shitpost, for without shitposting, life can still be.
>There is the flaw.
Nope.


> If you were not, and were thus free inside the container of this idea - the theoretical universe, you could indeed think really hard and end up on 4chan; the rules of that space are whatever you decide they are, but they must agree with logic to manifest in some way.
Why? Why should we believe that the rules of that space are so flexible? The only thing we know about them at this point is that ideas exist in this theoretical space.

>>8694943
Sorry, wrote stuff, must have deleted it.

Nope.
What kind of life would it be? Would it really be living?

>>8688533
How is global warming illogical?

>>8694807
How does step 1 follow from the premises? It might be valid, but it still does not follow from the premises.

Step 2 follows from step 1.

Step 3 does not appear to follow from anything. Should be a premise.

Step 4 is a repetition of a premise. Somewhat unnecessary.

Should I continue?

>>8688533
>global warming is illogical
just off yrself mate
- l. dicaprio

>>8694419
Lets say you are right, to a human, logic equals immediate death, what is the cosmic punishment for not following the logical conclusion? According to you, the only punishment I can think of would be a life with the opportunity to joy, pleasure, splendor, wonder, knowledge, friendship, family, love with a chance of rain and meatballs

Gentle reminder everything ITT stems from a twitch cultist, some video game e-celebs philosophy

>>8694807
>Since empirical evidence is impossible according to logic,
explain

>>8695176
Care to elaborate? I didn't even read those ramblings, I'd have to create an account to download the document.

You're working only from formal logic here and completely ignoring dialectical logic which comes to rather different conclusions than your pessimism

>>8686557
>Philosophy is an attempt to understand the true nature of existence, and the only method for that is logic.

which doesn't logically follow, funnily enough!

I just took a shit on the ground and im pretty sure this scat is flawlessly tautologically logical philosophically, at least I believe in it unless its proven wrong

File: 1-logic-diagram-on-being-final.png (172KB, 729x893px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 729x893px

>>8695453
Continuing on this.

OP Doesn't realize that Logic is an ongoing process towards the absolute, information and truth are constantly being created through the sublation of contradiction and progressing towards the absolute, it is not our duty to die, but to continue living and becoming wiser and driving the forces of history towards The Absolute Truth.

Pic related.

Read "The Science of Logic."

>>8695026

Also, step 3 is bullshit. The reason to not believe in god is not because there is no evidence that he exists, but because there is evidence that he does not exist.

Before I get into that evidence, I need to explain what evidence is. Evidence is an outcome that fills the following 3 criteria.
1) The outcome is the result of a test that could have falsified your claim. That is, you did a test, the result of that test could have proven you wrong.
2) The outcome needs to be verifiable by a third party.
3) It cannot also be evidence of a contradictory, simpler claim.

As a simple example, there is the claim that aliens built things for humans. The evidence of this is things that we do not currently know how they were built. Usually, the pyramids.

It is obvious that this evidence is the outcome of a test that could falsify the claim. If there was nothing around that we could not explain, then people claiming aliens made things for us would be willing to admit that it's unlikely. (They may still claim that aliens exist, but they wouldn't claim that they made things for us).

Additionally, it is verifiable by a third party. I can go look at the pyramids.

However, it happens to also be evidence for a simpler, contradictory claim. That is, there was some method that humans used to build the pyramids that we have not found. This turned out to be true. We have the ability to get humans to build pyramids with the same technology available. Therefore, pyramids are not evidence that aliens helped us out.

So, let's consider the hypothesis that god does not exist. First, we need to define god. God is a supernatural entity who created life.

So, for god to not exist, life would have to exist without supernatural intervention. That is, life would have to exist naturally. This means that the universe would have to provide everything that we need. For the universe to do that, it would have to meet a lot of very specific conditions. For example, there must exist a planet that contains all the things that life needs. Food, water, etc... As another example, the laws of physics would have to be very specific.

We would expect a universe that looks finely tuned. If god exists, then none of this fine-tuning is needed. Humans don't have access to food? God can use magic! Humans need to live in a specific range of temperatures, but do not currently do this? God can use magic!

So, we have a test. Does the universe look finely tuned for us? If not, then that would be evidence that a god exists. Therefore, the outcome of this test could falsify our claim. The outcome of this test is verifiable by a third party. And, to the best of my knowledge, there is no simpler, contradictory claim that could be explained with this evidence.

And we already know the outcome of this test. The universe does indeed appear finely tuned. So, therefore, we have evidence that a god does not exist.

Note that this is not proof. We do not have proof that god does not exist.

>>8696551
So, therefore, one could believe in god, and I could not prove that they are wrong. But, it is safe to assume that there is no god (if we define god as a supernatural entity that created life).

>>8694866
I have studied logic and philosophy pretty extensively during the final process of coming to my conclusions to ensure that I was not making mistakes. I am not. You are.

No, I diagnose the method we use for understanding, which I establish to be the basic part of existence because life demands action to maintain life, and to determine action you must make some sort of attempt to understand your environment.
I rely on every a priori truth possible and then I make speculative yet logical conclusions based on that. If you believe you can make more logical speculations based on the truth I have presented then please, do so. Be sure to be consistent and thorough in your explanation, since apparently an incredibly sustained attempt by me to that effect is not good enough for you.

I assert since there is no sufficient empirical evidence of something, to propose it exists you must have a logically flawless justification of its existence that accounts for all information possible on the subject. I have conclusively determined through my personal studies of religion that they are all flawed in some way; most are flawed because the premise is that God exists, and there is no complete justification for how - if you assert something always was, you must explain that statement or it is automatically flawed and this flaws the entire argument.
The method is identical for god and purpose, and the method proves that the logical assumption for the basic state of philosophical argument in relation to any and all sufficient evidence of any kind is that neither god nor purpose exist. That is a logical deduction from the information available; it is not as if we have not examined all of it for evidence of a god or a purpose - we have.

No... You're a fucking moron lol. Just because you are not conscious of your specific decisions relating to your method does not mean you are not responsible for forming one; you trip, and consciously you notice and attempt to stop yourself from falling. Unconsciously, your brain determines the best method for stopping your fall, and executes that action - you cannot reasonably attempt to tell me that you went through the process of deciding what to do in the split second, but your body DID use a method; that is irrefutable.

I believe that I have accounted for all the evidence. The fact of the matter is that if I was wrong, I would not know it, therefore I conclude it's possible due to human error I am incorrect about the conclusiveness of my logical evidence and the truth of the impossibility of empirical evidence on the topic, therefore I am willing to accept that I have, as a human, made an error in reasoning that is responsible in a flaw in my theory. However, I have examined my theory an incredible number of times, and had it examined by many others. I have determined it, myself, through careful study to be flawless; that is why I purport it so. I do not ask you accept that tag until you prove it to yourself.

>>8694943
There is no reasonable evidence that makes the current assumption that there is no deity or purpose unsound. There is evidence FOR the premises that there is no deity or purpose - these are the sets named "the set of evidence that there is not a deity" and "the set of evidence that there is not a purpose". Each set contains another set; a set titled "the set of evidence that there is a deity/purpose", and this set is empty. The opposite is not true because the onus of reasonable proof (which I would define as logical as long as that logic is complete and flawlessly consistent with the principles of logic or empirical evidence as long as that evidence is consistent with the methods of science currently) is on the asserter - the person saying that X is true, not the person saying X probably isn't true. X is true is an absolute statement and requires more justification to assume than X is probably not true, therefore a lack of evidence for X is true is reason enough to assume X is probably not true because it both supports X is probably not true and weakens X is true (due to the nature of the evidence required for X is true compared to X is probably not true or X is probably true, a lack of evidence is a more severe flaw for X is true)

It would be the basic part of living, trying to understand so that living can be perpetuated, yes; but to what end? I ask the same question of you now.

Come up with an idea, friend. Can you make it however you want? Can you create a world which clearly disagrees with the current laws of this world, conceptually, a story or a TV show or a game, and can you create characters and magic and powers and gods and death. Yes? Then conceptually, you can do whatever the fuck you like. If you lived in the space you create your ideas in, it is very logical you could manifest your nature simply because it is your will.

>>8694957
Umm... We are over-using fossil fuels to an incredibly extreme amount which is having and will have insane and catastrophic effects on our habitat and every ecosystem on our planet for centuries if not millenia to come. We have destroyed where we live and we have nowhere to go. What is not illogical about that.

>>8695026
Some of my steps are simply stating so as to be as explicit as possible about the information I am using for my rational calculations. Even if they turn out to be additional premises that I didn't explicitly state in the premises, and maybe formally I should have, the fact that I formally state them at all is what matters. Move past whether or not I am completely formal with my formatting, please, just try to assess the ideas presented.
I don't give a fuck if you think it's repetitive and unnecessary and messy; it's made for everyone to understand, not just gifted minds that are capable of seeing information once and determining it true for sure and moving on.

>>8695161
There is no cosmic punishment; you're a subjective being with no god or binding purpose therefore you can decide to do whatever you want. You can live past this understanding, if you somehow find a way to justify it to yourself. I merely assert that since all human beings attempt to employ logic in every decision they make, at some point when a life problem seems unsolvable (the nature of life is that it is unfair) you will turn to logic for the solution and inevitably, for the rest of time the solution logic will suggest is death if you care enough to use logic properly - if the problem is great enough that a sloppy application of logic, what you would currently be using to justify existence, would not cut it for solving the problem. If you learn logic better; the principle is consistency, the more attentive you are to the rules of logic in your attempt to learn them, the more consistently you hold to logic regardless of your subjective emotional feelings about the conclusions it presents. If a conclusion CAN be said to be final with flawless logic, then the flawless nature of the logic necessitates that conclusion.

>>8695176
>>8695285
Um, what? a twitch cultist? hahahahah
Nah you don't need an account bro that link failed, just check the replies on the main post. I reposted a working link :)

>>8695453
>>8696057
This asserts that existence actually is though, my whole argument is that if I am correct, then I have the first explanation for physical existence - it seems impossible because it is; theoretical existence is the answer, that seems physical to us. And I have a logical justification of this that explains everything with no information missing - the idea that this universe is a simulation is an example of an attempt to say this is theoretical with no true explanation of how or why, because they assert you cannot know this at all. I assert with logic, you can know both HOW and WHY this is theoretical, and it is NOT a simulation or a video game. It is the result of the objective, perpetual existence of physical data.

>>8697075
You are making nothing but mistakes.

>>8697126
pull the trigger... of the gun in your mouth. do it now

>>8697092
>logic is good because of logical evidence
More mistakes.

>>8696551
>>8696559
You assume you know the method that this entity would choose; I propose that most of the Gods who have been presented through religions have claimed to have created this world to provide for us, WITH magic. Therefore, your claim that God would use magic to fix the problems is true - he created a world without these problems, and then filled the skies with every other world, according to most scriptures. Our world DOES appear finely tuned for life, but the universe doesn't... there are far more planets where life is impossible than planets where it is. This would be considered evidence that God DOES exist.
The evidence that disproves this notion is the math involved; the sheer size of the universe we live in determines that life is almost a certainty because of the vast range of conditions that MUST exist in an entropic, unimaginably gigantic collections of 'stuff' of every kind. This is evidence of the simpler claim of life simply occurring within the incredibly vast universe governed by the nature of entropy, DUE to the nature of entropy. The more complex claim this contradicts is the logically and empirically unjustified proposition of the pre-existence of a deity before the existence of everything that exists. It basically contradicts itself, so the amount of work you have to do to invalidate it is relatively small... (a simple question such as how, to which 'the deity just always was' is not a sufficient answer unless followed by logical proof of some kind that even if the deity is not, the deity is, due to an undeniable nature that you can prove it has through an experiment of some kind. If an empirical experiment is logically impossible, then the evidence only consists of logical proof. Therefore, if the application of logic in said proof is flawless, the conclusion is similarly flawless and true due to the impossibility of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence on this topic is impossible because any test of your surroundings cannot truly determine their origin, only their structure, and any attempts to determine methodically with empirical evidence what the origin of the singularity which caused the big bang was have been literally completely fruitless for the entire time we have attempted to answer this question. I propose this is because the method of science currently is the philosophy of Logical Positivism, which does not account for the possibility of a concept for which there can be no empirical evidence, and for which logical evidence must be relied on.

>>8697135
Then identify them and prove that they are indeed mistakes, or I don't believe your assessment is correct (as is my logical right until you provide sufficient proof in the form of an undeniably proven argument - which I do not agree you are making)

>>8697139
No, logic is good because of the only other kind of evidence we trust; empirical evidence. If both of the possible types of evidence agree with each other about each other, then it is reasonable to assume that both are true, and that one might supercede the other. I assert that logic supercedes empiricism, and I have given a great argument for this if you'd read my document a bit more comprehensively you ignorant twats :)

>>8697182
>prove they are mistakes
I have, you're just ignorant.
>No, logic is good because of the only other kind of evidence we trust; empirical evidence
is-ought

>>8697174
Interestingly, the method of science has actually accepted some things to be true without empirical evidence before; chemistry accepts that there are elements we cannot observe because they deteriorate too quickly, however because we can prove via math and the structure of atoms that they exist, we accept that it's a fact that they do and put them on our periodic table. Similarly, it is widely accepted that a paradox IS a phenomenon - it is also widely regarded that it is an impossible phenomenon, which is true, however the fact of that matter is that it is widely accepted that it COULD be possible that a paradox could exist - that we cannot know such a thing. I assert we can know such a thing, because the structure of everything determines a paradox could not manifest in any way, and only exists as the unstable concept of something that never could be.

>>8697189
You seem a bit retarded man. I'm not interested in your words, I don't agree you've presented sufficient evidence. Just because you think you have doesn't make it true, and just because I think you haven't doesn't make it true. Therefore, to make it true, demonstrate on paper in a formal logical format that my ideas are incorrect because they are inconsistent with the principles of logic, or accept that they are not inconsistent with logic, and thus they are objectively correct even if they are not subjectively correct for you (they don't agree with your emotions and you are reacting emotionally as one is wont to do, therefore your reaction is that you don't agree). Thus I think when you put it on paper in a formal format you will discover that emotion makes less sense outside the body than it does inside the body :P

>>8697202
and just because I think you haven't doesn't make your claim that you have false*

>>8697202
>i dont' agree
subject-object confusion
Logic is inherently wrong, that's why you're wrong.

Logic is also driven solely by emotions, drawn to solely by emotions, and is the creation of emotion.

>>8697110
> it's made for everyone to understand, not just gifted minds that are capable of seeing information once and determining it true for sure and moving on.

You seemed to follow my proof from earlier perfectly well. (The one that claimed that you were being illogical by continuing to live). You were able to find the faulty premise that caused it to fail. Do you think there is someone else who could not follow that proof?

Those gifted minds that are capable of seeing information once and determining it true for sure and moving on? They are all saying that they can't determine how you are concluding what you are concluding. They can't find anything you say that is 100% false, but they can't see how it's 100% true, which is a prerequisite for a proof.

When a proof gets as long as this has, the better move is to turn it into multiple subproofs. Determine a subset of the proof that is, in itself, a single proof. Present that before the proof. Include the result of that as a premise of the later proofs that do require it. For example, step 9 should be entirely separate. Then, if someone does not accept the premise there, they can more easily isolate the problem. Try writing it as follows:

Theorem 1: Data exists
Premises:
1) For something to exist, it must either physically exist, or theoretically exist.
2) "There is no OP" is an example of data.
We shall demonstrate this by using a proof by contradiction, so suppose that data does not exist.
If data does not exist, then there is no evidence of something physically existing. Therefore, assume that nothing physically exists.
Similarly, if data does not exist, then there is no evidence of something theoretically existing. Therefore, assume that nothing theoretically exists.
etc...

Theorem 2: Relativity exists
Premise: Data exists (See Theorem 1)
etc...

Now, if I want to disprove theorem 2 by demonstrating that the premise is flawed, I now know where to look. Writing it like this is so that people don't need to remember everything forever. They can determine if it is true, and then move on. If they later want to argue with a premise, they can go back and look at your proof, because you say exactly where it is. Making the beginning of each proof easily visible will help people find that proof a lot easier.

As stands, you may be making claims that are based on other statements, but I'm unable to determine this. Because you are drawing things from future statements, with no warning. If I see someone prove statement 8 in statement 9, I worry about circular reasoning (since they may be using something determined later in step 8 in step 9, and this would result in circular reasoning.) That's why it has to be reliant only on past steps.

The reason to present them formally is so that people can determine the validity of the ideas more easily. The fact that you are unwilling to write them more formally is evidence that they are invalid.

>>8697075
>I have studied logic and philosophy pretty extensively during the final process of coming to my conclusions to ensure that I was not making mistakes.

You clearly didn't grasp the material since you can't identify the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument. You won't even engage with my criticisms because you know you're wrong. You just talk past me.

> I diagnose the method we use for understanding
No you don't. You speculate but it remains unproven.
>life demands action to maintain life
False premises.
>I rely on every a priori truth possible
Incorrect. If you knew what 'a priori truth' meant you would know this is impossible.
>an incredibly sustained attempt
What a joke. Your work is a mess and you're in denial about how flawed it is.

>have conclusively determined through my personal studies of religion that they are all flawed in some way

Show it then. You can't just say something you've concluded but not shown your evidence.
"Just believe me."
No.

>Just because you are not conscious of your specific decisions relating to your method does not mean you are not responsible for forming one

Instinct is not a method. Again, look at the synonyms of 'method'. Literally none of them come close to implicating any unconscious action.

>I believe that I have accounted for all the evidence.

Answer the question.

did you read the deathconsciousness booklet and just think that philosophy stopped going anywhere after 1850 cause thats kind of the vibe im getting here

>>8697174

Okay. So, you agree with me that evidence for a lack of gods exist, that is not in the form of "There is no evidence that god exists". I claim that this is the reason to believe that god does not exist. That the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

So, with this in mind, taking the line that "Thus, assume physical existence does not objectively exist." from "There is no data, therefore there is no evidence of physical existence." is a non-sequitor. You would also have to show that there is nothing which physically exists without leaving evidence. Similar for things that theoretically exists. Is it possible for something to exist without evidence? How would we tell, considering it leaves no evidence?

At this point, the potential existence of something that does not leave behind evidence is a reason to not accept your conclusions.

>>8697208
Logic is the method through which bad emotions become good emotions. To attempt to dispute logic is to say you will live a horrible life because you will always make choices in a way that is fundamentally wrong.

>>8697233
I understand your point and again, this is a valid criticism. I can attempt to construct it in the format you suggest, to avoid confusion for your benefit. I am not unwilling, at all. I simply have not yet put in the time to make the changes you've suggested to improve the formatting of the document. I haven't used circular reasoning, but I recognise that's a valid reason to want my steps to be in a very precise order, so I will change them to be that way (as I said earlier)
I am quite committed to improving the legibility and comprehension of my document, and that is not what I refer to when I call it flawless - I refer to the hypothesis, method and conclusions described within, which I think are flawless. It is perfectly reasonable to contest that if you think it has not been reasonably demonstrated, and I agree improper formatting can hide a flaw that would otherwise be explicit in someone's logic so again, I will comply.

>>8697234
I think you are actually misunderstanding the difference - there basically isn't one. You can argue that soundness does not represent validity unless that soundness is confirmed by evidence, but that argument is not supported by the definitions of either word. Validity IS whether or not something is logically or empirically sound, and OR is the operative word.
https://gyazo.com/e458c0765b47a4785951c52292c0038f
https://gyazo.com/7c4470ff8bad1e27a2de161a821b2693

I do not speculate, it's an observation of human nature based on years of experience of being a person - I have as much right to assert a conclusion about human nature as anyone else does, and the fact that we have a thing called "Science" with hundreds of fields of scientific inquiry is a BUTTLOAD of empirical evidence that we attempt to understand stuff, more than ANYTHING else we do ever. To attempt to be good at ANY task, you must attempt to understand that task. Therefore, the meaning of life, if life requires action, is to understand every task, and thus in the end understand the true task; life.

No... it does. If you do not act, your life ends. That is an empirically provable fact. No action at all is equivalent to the inevitable expiration of biological life.

I rely on the logic that is inherent to empirical evidence to prove that empirical evidence is good evidence of logic. Yes, logic perpetuates logic in the end: that's the IDEA. Logic IS reason IS objective truth, providing it accounts for all possible information relating to a concept and remains completely consistent to the principles and applications of logic.
https://gyazo.com/a6afe1c83a9c7f78cb2f600280c7ebd1
Logic orders empirical evidence to make it sound evidence of logic itself - it is evident that complete evidence will always be completely consistent.

>>8697296
You are completely misunderstanding what the fuck you are talking about.
The evidence I presented is exactly equivalent to the linguistic argument "there is no evidence that a god or a purpose exists"; it is simply presented with set theory (math: codified logic). It's not EVIDENCE that they do not exist, it is evidence that there is absolutely no reason to entertain the possibility that they do; thus for all hypothetical arguments, assume they do not.

>>8697239
My ideas are my own :)

>>8697234
Do your own fucking studies, are you religious yourself fuckwit? If not, then you clearly agree with me; I don't have to PROVE it to you. Anyone who hasn't already proven it to themselves has not done so because they are in denial about the way logic should be used - they are not aware that logic is undeniably sure that the reasonable conclusion about god or purpose is neither, until new evidence presents itself.

Instinct is NOT a method, instinct is something which motivates; your brain develops a method based on the instinct to act upon a piece of stimulus - if your brain does not employ a method, how do you propose action occurs?

The answer to that question is that it will always be open to new evidence about the fact that it is concluded, but the current fact is, that until evidence which might be impossible, it is currently concluded. Thus, when all consider it currently concluded, it becomes completely concluded.

>>8697385
>I understand your point and again, this is a valid criticism. I can attempt to construct it in the format you suggest, to avoid confusion for your benefit. I am not unwilling, at all. I simply have not yet put in the time to make the changes you've suggested to improve the formatting of the document. I haven't used circular reasoning, but I recognise that's a valid reason to want my steps to be in a very precise order, so I will change them to be that way (as I said earlier)
>I am quite committed to improving the legibility and comprehension of my document, and that is not what I refer to when I call it flawless - I refer to the hypothesis, method and conclusions described within, which I think are flawless. It is perfectly reasonable to contest that if you think it has not been reasonably demonstrated, and I agree improper formatting can hide a flaw that would otherwise be explicit in someone's logic so again, I will comply.

You know, I was expecting more stubbornness from you. I'll keep an eye on this page, but I'm probably not gonna say anything major until you clean it up.

>>8697402
I would even go as far to say that wholly embracing instinct is the outright rejection of method

>>8697385
>I think you are actually misunderstanding the difference
No -- http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

These are common terms in formal logic and there is a huge difference. Soundness = truth + validity. An argument can still be valid even if it isn't sound.

>empirical evidence that we attempt to understand stuff

That's not the point I was making. Please pay attention.

>If you do not act, your life ends

False. Life support.

>Logic orders empirical evidence to make it sound evidence of logic itself - it is evident that complete evidence will always be completely consistent.

You're still avoiding the question.

>>8697402
>If not, then you clearly agree with me

Doesn't matter. Prove your conclusions.

>I don't have to PROVE it to you.

Yes you do.

>if your brain does not employ a method, how do you propose action occurs?

Doesn't matter, it's not a 'method' by any stretch of the definition.

>Thus, when all consider it currently concluded, it becomes completely concluded.

So it's not concluded.

>>8697461
I am saying the thing that provides the truth necessary for soundness in this case is the TRUTH of the premise that empirical evidence is unavailable on the topic of the origin of existence while logical evidence is available and the TRUTH that logical evidence can be relied upon for sound reasoning, and additionally that logical processes are the ONLY method for consistently sound and valid reasoning.

>>8697469
No, I don't. It's basically an additional premise, and I do not have to prove a premise - it just has to be logically plausible. Therefore, to prove that this premise is flawed, demonstrate that fact, or I assert it is not and I do not need to prove simply in order to assert.

It fucking is you moron. How would you describe it?

No, it is not completely concluded yet, because the objectivity of the facts has not been confirmed by the scientific community. When it is, it will be completely concluded.

>>8697461
Life support is an example of a human invention of a system that automates the actions necessary to maintain life in a body unable to perform said actions itself.
No... I am not. You are just unable to think clearly because the emotional need to live is clouding your judgement.

>>8697473
Logical evidence based on a SPECULATIVE TRUTH. It's not a sound argument and can't be called a 'truth' to develop another sound argument.

>>8697489
Logical evidence is only a speculative truth in a situation where empirical evidence is possible, because if empirical evidence is possible it is impossible to know that there is not relevant empirical evidence missing. Since it is impossible for empirical evidence to exist on the topic in question, I am able to use logic to demonstrate that it is impossible for logical information to be missing AND I am able to use logic to demonstrate that it is impossible for empirical evidence to be at all, therefore the complete logical evidence I have presented validates my conclusion as completely as is theoretically possible in this universe.

>>8697483
>I do not have to prove a premise

A false premise + logic = valid but not sound. So either demonstrate it to the reader or your work can only be read as speculation.

>How would you describe it?

Doesn't matter, it's not a method. Stop misusing terms.

>the conclusion of thinking is that thinking is concluded
>No, it is not completely concluded yet

Makes you think.

>the actions necessary to maintain life

So unconscious body processes like breathing are now employed by a method of questioning? Lmfao.

>You are just unable to think clearly because the emotional need to live is clouding your judgement.

Such a projection. Not interested.

>>8697496
So it's not sound.

>>8697504
The idea is that if the reader thinks a premise is false the reader will use logic to determine that to be true. If they are using logic correctly, (the rules in question I delineate in the first two steps), then they will realize that incomplete logical reasoning cannot be considered a logical proof, therefore there is not sufficient evidence of the premise that God always was - the explanation offered as evidence of the premise's validity is not compatible with the standard of evidence required on the subject - and thus the reasonable conclusion is that God does not exist. The only possible reason for this being a non-conclusion for them currently is an incorrect application of logic - they attempt to deny science because science never had all the answers. I present the version of science that has all the answers, without an unproven premise such as God.

>>8697510
It is sound - the impossibility of other evidence forces the soundness of the evidence if the evidence is not flawed logically in some way. All that is required is that it is logically valid for this to be sound, because according to logic the only thing AVAILABLE to dispute this theory is logic.

>>8697520
Thus, it is impossible to empirically prove this theory false, and equally impossible to empirically prove the theory true.
Additionally
It is impossible to logically prove the theory false, and possible to logically prove the theory true.

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Thus, the theory is proven true.

>>8697515
In any case it should be a premise so that if it was false then the conclusion is false.

>>8697528
Another anon already addressed my improper formal formatting, which I will be changing. I agree it should be a premise.

>>8697520
>not flawed logically in some way

Like not being sound.

A valid argument does not make a truth on which to draw a sound conclusion. That's the whole reason for a valid/sound split. They're not 'basically the same'.

>>8697524
Except when the conclusion is drawn from false premises in which it wouldn't be the truth.

>>8697533
Look, you are wrong. The traditional way for an argument to be valid but unsound is if the premise is untrue. Since it is completely impossible to demonstrate the premise untrue, and the definition of a premise is that it is hypothetically true, it will remain hypothetically true until demonstrated not true. Therefore, your reasoning cannot flaw my argument.

>>8697536
Correct, but to assert that a premise is false, the burden of proof is on you because the definition of a reasonable premise is something which can be hypothetically true, because it is conceptually consistent with the rules of logic. To say that my argument derives from a truth which is not a priori is completely incorrect. The premises of my argument are completely logically sound. There is no flaw present. I start with I exist, and prove that incorrect. I start with data does not exist, and prove that incorrect. I am using a correct logical premise for a proof by contradiction of this experience as objective existence and my reasoning is sound as well. Thus, my conclusions ARE sound, unless you can demonstrate the flaw you think you can see in my premises in the formal format of a proof of your own.

>>8697549
>Since it is completely impossible to demonstrate the premise untrue

It's impossible to demonstrate it true, so your conclusion remains valid but it can't be sound.

>to assert that a premise is false, the burden of proof is on you

It's the opposite.

>The premises of my argument are completely logically sound.

No they're not since they're not based on truth.

>>8697615
Anyway I'd much rather prefer to engage with the work after it's cleaned up. That was my point from the beginning.

>>8697615
Wrong, refer to >>8697524

No, a premise is hypothetically true. The only requirements for a hypothetical truth are that it is logical and not disproven by empirical evidence; it is not required that a premise be supported by empirical evidence...

>>8697630
>It's impossible to demonstrate it true
>Wrong: it is impossible to empirically prove this theory false, and equally impossible to empirically prove the theory true.

Ok.

>No, a premise is hypothetically true.

Sound arguments don't come from hypothetically true premises. Hypothetically there are blue trees on another planet but I can't develop that into a sound argument.

>>8697635
You could if the planet was in a story of yours, where you define what the colour of the trees are.
If the world is theoretical, like I suggest, then sound arguments literally DO come from hypothetically true premises. This entire universe is simply a hypothetically true premise. It's one of the infinite things that could be objectively manifested, if anything apart from the basics of any space, logic and data, WERE objectively manifested, but it's not, so it's a hypothetical, and yet we are experiencing it.

If the foundation for a premise is that the object being described is in theoretical space, then that premise is automatically true as long as it makes complete logical sense, simply because it is a theory, and requires no objective verification to be continue to be a theory on the conceptual plane.

That is to say, all ideas exist on the theoretical plane, and you do not draw them when you design a unique concept but rather you describe the conceptual structure of what already theoretically is.

>>8697650
Ah, I see, circular reasoning.

Jesus christ, OP's picture is admitting this is bait. Why is anyone still arguing with this imbecile?

>>8697663
It's sarcastic, it's actually not at all bait.

>>8697662
No... It's the acknowledgement of the lack of current reasoning. There is no reasoning necessary to determine that this is certainly theoretical if there is currently no certain explanation of existence at all; I merely need to assert that it is theoretical and explain how, and the logically flawless explanation of how is the unprecedented piece of information which validates the whole argument.

>>8697662
I mean, at the very least, don't you admit that for the first time a perfectly consistent explanation has been proposed for something ALWAYS existing - I have told you the mechanism data uses for always existing, that has never been done before. To prove that something always existed has NEVER been done before, therefore this proof about data is revolutionary.

>>8697668
It's literally circular reasoning. Your premises rely on your conclusions to make sense. It's not flawless, it's a fallacy.

You conclude that everything is theoretical and this conclusion is required for the idea that that you can make a sound argument from a theoretical truth because you conclude that everything is theoretical (and this conclusion is required for the idea that you can make a sound argument from a theoretical truth because you conclude that everything is theoretical (and this conclusion ...))

>>8697681
No, I am asserting that IF my conclusion is logically true - in that hypothetical universe - then it is objectively factual because if it is hypothetically true then hypothetically it is also true that other evidence is logically impossible. I am not asserting it is valid because it's valid, I'm saying it's valid as a potential THE CORRECT ANSWER as soon as it becomes hypothetically the correct answer, and the only true requirement for a HYPOTHETICALLY CORRECT answer is that it is completely consistent with the principles of logic. Please try to understand this important distinction.

>>8697690
The only way for it to transition from "potentially the correct answer" to "objectively the correct answer" is for science to determine that a sufficient period of time has passed without a coherent logical flaw in the theory being presented that the simple evidence of humanity's complete inability to formulate an alternative explanation to mine is indicative of a formally complete conclusion.

>>8697694
I haven't contemplated how long that amount of time might be, except that unless there is a definitive date set where we will evaluate the possibility that our explanation is complete, we will never perform that evaluation in an objective, trustworthy way because we are manipulated into invalidating our data subconsciously by our presentation of it as to present it in the most logical format is to present a conclusion that contradicts what you are - alive.

>>8697690
Please try to understand the distinction between soundness and validity.

Your argument is not sound just because your conclusions negate the need for actually true premises required for a sound argument. That's complete nonsense.

Your premise relies on your conclusion. This is a fallacy.

>>8697700
You are genuinely misunderstanding the principles you are relying upon. Ask someone you consider an intellectual superior to evaluate your claims about my claims, but don't give your reasoning, and then see if A) They agree and B) Their reasoning matches yours. If A) truly is correct, B) must be correct, otherwise you misunderstand that you don't quite agree, you just agree in terms of a conclusion. You and a relative point of intellectual capability can work together to determine my ideas factual. The only reason you are able to conclude in an illogical way currently is that you are not asking someone who would know better than you if your thinking is making sense - I have done this, systematically.

>>8697707
Please make sure you present my claim about the impossibility of empirical evidence, because I believe that relevant to the disproof of your claim that I cannot call my proof true simply because it is logical.

>>8697707
No you're right, I personally just made up the ideas of formal logic and what constitutes a fallacy. I haven't had these ideas checked by anyone.

>>8697715
I know you understand the ideas I simply suggest you are applying them in an incorrect way in this particular instance. Do you not agree this is possible? If it were true, don't you also agree you would not necessarily know or believe it true when informed? If you agree with both of these, then my suggestion to get your thoughts on my theory validated to ensure they make sense are entirely logical, because you can never be sure you are correct.

>>8697719
I know you understand the ideas I simply suggest you are applying them in an incorrect way in this particular instance. Do you not agree this is possible? If it were true, don't you also agree you would not necessarily know or believe it true when informed? If you agree with both of these, then my suggestion to get your thoughts on my theory validated to ensure they make sense are entirely logical, because you can never be sure you are correct.

>>8697721
I agree it is possible, that is why I am asking for the possible invalidation of my ideas by posting them on the internet.
I am taking action to check if my ideas can be invalidated.
The fact that you believe you have invalidated them does not make your belief necessarily factual. I am asking you to attempt to verify the validity of your belief that you have logically invalidated my theory from someone whose intellectual opinion you respect already; since clearly you are having trouble respecting mine. This is not unreasonable. I am taking action to have my ideas verified, it is fair to ask that the verification process to be verified at least once. Since each person is their own verification process, each person must have their opinion on what might invalidate my theory validated by someone that is neither me nor them, to ensure the truth of that claim, for both they and I have a conflict of interest in terms of determining the relative truth of each others statements; ego.

>>8697700
You are currently determining that the truth I refer to cannot be considered truly complete because there is information missing. I assert that although this is true, the information missing is logically impossible to acquire, therefore the only possible 'complete' answer is one which is as close to complete as possible. Therefore, I propose my answer is the 'complete' answer, which is defined as the answer which is as complete as it will ever be possible to be.

>>8697725
Yeah I just got them checked out and everyone agrees.

Maybe you should introduce my ideas to your intellectual superiors when you show them your work. Provide the definition of what constitutes a valid and a sound argument. Then try to tell them that you don't need evidence for your argument to be sound because the conclusion you reached from a hypothetical truth does not necessitate evidence in order for the argument to be sound.

>>8697731
Refer to >>8697729
I do not call my truth objectively complete, but rather subjectively complete. It is as complete as it is possible for a subjective truth to be, therefore should logically be subjectively acted upon.

>>8697729
You propose that the information needed to make your premises true (and your argument sound) can be drawn from the conclusion you based on the hypothetical in your premises.

>>8697736
>I do not call my truth objectively complete

Well great, we can sit here waiting for your truth to become objective. I'll reply to you when that happens.

>>8697740
No, I propose that my argument is valid and if my argument is valid then its validity necessitates that conclusion that it is sound - its validity determines the idea that empirical evidence is impossible is valid, and thus its valid that it COULD be sound, and there would be no way to truly know. The only way you may attempt to know, is to logically analyze it. If it is logically flawless, then the chances that the argument is valid is closer to 75% than 50% because half of standard for what is considered completely proven is presented for one side of the argument, and no amount of sufficient evidence is presented for the other side of the argument.

>>8697743
Bro, all that is required for it to become objective is for science to agree it might be. If science says "This makes sense and is more complete than any explanation before, therefore it might be true and we will assume it is true for now" then it will only be a matter of time before people start to act on the scientific belief and the conclusions associated with it.

Because the fact of the matter is that it doesn't have to be conclusively proven for it to be scientific belief, it simply has to be the most advanced theory. That IS what I present; the MOST advanced theory.

>>8697746
>No, I propose that my argument is valid and if my argument is valid then its validity necessitates that conclusion that it is sound

That's not how these terms work. Here is an example of a valid argument which is not sound.

Premise
1) All prime numbers are multiples of four.
2) All multiples of four are even.

Consider any prime number p. Because p is a prime number, p is a multiple of four. Since p is a multiple of four, p is even. Therefore, all prime numbers are even.

The argument is valid. However, we made incorrect assumptions along the way. Therefore, it is not sound.

Also, note that the proof is either sound or not sound. The premises and conclusions don't get the tag. It's the whole thing.

>>8697803
Correct, therefore if are able to demonstrate that a premise is flawed logically or empirically you may dismiss it. If you are unable to logically or empirically flaw a premise, then that premise remains valid until you do. Thus, its conclusions are valid until some sufficient proof against the premise is presented.

The argument is not valid, and the reason it's not valid is that the premises are inconsistent with the principles of logic. Therefore, it is both invalid and non-sound.

All I am saying is that my proof COULD be sound, there is no way you can definitely say it's not. Since it could be sound, and it's logical that it's sound, the only possible assumption given the evidence available is that it's sound.

>>8697803
A better example would be one not involving math, because the empirical evidence in the situation of math is simply the observation of a purely logical evidence. Therefore, if a mathematical premise is incorrect the premise is both logically and empirically flawed - it is logically flawed before you test it and both empirically and logically flawed after you test it.
Sorry I mispoke, yes your argument is valid, but it proves itself unsound if logic is applied to it comprehensively and consistently. My argument is valid and cannot be used to prove itself unsound regardless of the comprehensive and consistently logical nature of the attempt, therefore the logical conclusion is that it is sound.

>>8697803
>>8697827
>>8697844

The reason your argument is valid is because it makes sense, however it is not logically consistent which is what prevents it from even possibly being sound. My argument is logically consistent and it makes sense, therefore it is valid and it MAY be sound. The fact that it MAY be sound is enough of a reason for what I think to change what Science thinks, because all Science is interested in is a sound answer. If something new "may" be sound in an equivalent way as something old, and the new thing is more advanced as well, then the new thing is the current thing and the old thing is the old thing.
Therefore, my theory is new Science, and current Science will become old Science.

You sound like this guy

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheSpiritScience/videos

>>8697879
I use logic to justify every single assumption I make. That would be the main difference between myself and this guy - he proposes his beliefs, I propose I have proven mine.

>>8697853
valid = logically consistent. that's what the word means

>>8697897
didn't read the thread or the OP, but

>memogic

>>8697970
It becomes invalid if you try to prove that it's logically consistent, but as it is presented, its form is valid however it is impossible for it to be sound, because its not completely valid - only its current form is. It becomes both invalid and non-sound as soon as you attempt to prove that it makes sense.

Valid refers to two factors: Is the idea consistent with itself? And: Is the idea consistent with the principles of logic?
If both of these are true, then an argument is completely valid. If one of these is true and the other seems true, then the argument's form is valid, however if you attempt to prove the argument, the argument turns out to be invalid. If one of the listed consistency conditions can be proven to be false, then the argument is not valid.

>>8697844
>math, because the empirical evidence in the situation of math is simply the observation of a purely logical evidence. Therefore, if a mathematical premise is incorrect the premise is both logically and empirically flawed - it is logically flawed before you test it and both empirically and logically flawed after you test it.
>Sorry I mispoke, yes your argument is valid, but it proves itself uns


Nah, let's go for another maths one. Coz I want to debunk another theory of yours.

In 2004, they managed to prove that, for any integer N, there was a pair of numbers A and B, such that for any value of i between 0 and N-1, A+Bi was a prime number. (e.g. For N=10, we get A = 199, B = 210. when i=0, we get 199, which is a prime number. when i=1, we get 409, which is a prime number. when i=2, we get 619, which is also a prime number, etc... This continues up until i=10, where we get 2299, which is 19 x 11 x 11, which is obviously not prime)

Before this happened, there was no evidence of such a proof existing. They weren't even sure that the claim was true. They were pretty certain, of course, since they'd managed to find such values for large N. But, there was no evidence that a proof could be created.

And yet, these mathematicians created a proof. This can only occur if they recognised that the fact that there was no evidence that a proof existed did not mean that a proof did not exist.

Now, math is a purely logical field. One would expect mathematicians to be very logical in their work. But, if we apply the bullshit that you call logic, these mathematicians would not have even tried to construct such a proof, because there was no evidence that a proof existed.

>>8697981
what are you talking about? valid means there are no flaws in the logic. something is only not valid if the logic isn't consistent. that's the literal, unchanging definition of valid in the context of logic

>>8697997
>id means there are no flaws in the logic. something is only not valid if the logic isn't consistent. that's the literal, unchanging definition of valid in the context of logic


You missed the part where OP is acting like spirit science, completely ignoring the official meanings of words in the field he is trying to hop into, and not making his definitions 100% clear.

>An observer neutral to the conditions described could make an observation – the data to be interpreted is that there is nothing, and the contextual data that makes the primary data relevant and accurate is that there is only empty space; a true nothing.

an empty space is an empty space, not nothing. nothingness is unobservable because it's an absence of observability.

did bronte break your heart??
also, i dont really see anything new or revolutionary in your essay. Have you read the works of the people you referenced?
That isnt to say most of it isnt sound, because it is. The latter parts and some of the replys youve made in this thread seem to have a few leaps though, like your claim that logical thinking should cease because it is illogical if done consistently, or that mass suicide is the logical conclusion for humanity.

>>8697987
Not accurate; what you are describing is that the mathematicians recognized the reality that most problems can be solved if the solution is created using an accurate analysis or understanding of the problem. So, it was logical to assume there would be a solution for the problem, not illogical to assume it, and thus logical to attempt to solve it. A proof established in math is a proof of pure logic; all a proof of pure logic must do is demonstrate the methods it is using, the results it is getting and the conclusions it is making from the methods and results. If a proof of logic contains the complete set of possible relevant information, then the conclusion of that proof is completely true providing that the reasoning and premises are not flawed in any way.
You simply reinforce my point; simply because there has never been proof about philosophy before, and we have never been sure it was even possible, does not necessarily mean it isn't possible or that I have not determined and demonstrated it.

>>8697997
>>8698008
Ideas must be consistent with respect to logical principles. One of the logical principles is that ideas must be consistent with themselves throughout. Therefore, there are two ways to test the consistency of the logic: Self-consistency within the idea, and consistency with all the principles of logic.

>>8698010
That is exactly what I determine not to be true by proposing a hypothetical neutrality to the situation.

>>8698106
It's not that I present a lot of new or revolutionary information. The only revolutionary bit of it is my PROVEN explanation of how all of this came to be, which has never been done before, and the proven conclusion of that which is that this IS a self-sustaining theoretical existence, rather than the objective existence science and society in general assumes it is. These two things are revolutionary.

Yes Brontë broke my heart, a couple of times.

Some of it is a bit unclear because I haven't improved the comprehension of the document enough yet. A lot of it seems sound, that's what everyone who hears it says. It's only after you go over it, yourself, again and again to find the bit that isn't correct that you can admit that there might be nothing incorrect about it at all... at which point it falls to greater minds than you to attempt to solve, to save us all from an inevitable death - we used logic to arm us against every danger in this world, but logic could never save us from itself.

>>8698010
>>8698126
I explain, literally in the next sentence, the two possible pieces of evidence that prove data exists - the two observations possible.

>>8698132

Nah. I'm waiting on a better writeup. The current setup is not valid, because it introduces additional assumptions throughout. It's difficult to tell what is an assumption and what is a conclusion based on previous assumptions, partially due to the complete lack of structure.

If you want the scientific community to accept this, you need to write it up in a significantly clearer way.

>>8698106
What you are describing when you say some of my later thinking seems to have leaps is that it SEEMS illogical to conclude that logicality could destroy those who employ it in the end - it's almost as if logic is disproving logic. This is an instance of a phenomenon which can be described a something seeming as if it is false because of the incredible nature of the claim, however if you inspect the proof provided carefully the flaw in the proof is hard (nay, impossible) to pinpoint.

I agree it seems like I must be doing something wrong, it seems like that CAN'T be the conclusion of logic, but that is your body guiding your thoughts to can't, and shouldn't, and error and flaw. It is your body willing you to conclude to continue living, because all your body has ever wanted you to do is help it survive, and if you're not gonna do that, then what good are you. It uses you. It controls your thought patterns and it manipulates you with emotions to conclude illogically because its nature is TO SURVIVE, not to be logical. YOUR nature is to be logical, or at least, attempt to be.

>>8698149
That's fair enough, I have already started doing this. It might take me a day or two though haha. :P

>>8698126
>You simply reinforce my point; simply because there has never been proof about philosophy before, and we have never been sure it was even possible, does not necessarily mean it isn't possible or that I have not determined and demonstrated it.

I don't deny that a proof about philosophy could exist. It is certainly possible for someone to create it. But, for example, the lack of evidence about the existence of a purpose in life is not a valid reason to assume that no purpose exists, especially when you are trying to prove something. That's not how science works. When presented with something that has no evidence either way, scientists will attempt to find conclusions that works regardless of what assumptions get made.

As a result, I disagree that you have a proof that is sound. (It might be valid, it's hard to say) Your assumptions are in the form of "There is no evidence that this is the case, so we should assume it's not the case". That is not a reason to accept things, unless there is solid evidence that, if it were true, there would be evidence.

>>8698165
Well considering humans have pondered the questions of god and purpose for millennia, and endlessly attempted and failed to show evidence for either, I think the sustained attempt and sustained failure is evidence, and the evidence for the alternate is... nothing. Therefore, assume not.

>>8698165
Besides, I essentially assert that our purpose is what we all currently do - attempt to understand our existence. I merely make an early reference to the fact that there is no scientifically established purpose or even scientific proof that there is one, or a god. Then, I present my observation on the most common behaviour of humans, and assert my conclusion on the What and Why based on those observations. I am also writing proofs for my observations about the nature, behaviour and methodology of conscious life - a lot of this is unstated in my current version, or rather stated merely as an assertion of fact based on my consistent observations, something which cannot conclusively be relied upon.

>>8698126
>Ideas must be consistent with respect to logical principles.

are you just restating what validity is but just not getting that you're talking about validity?

>That is exactly what I determine not to be true by proposing a hypothetical neutrality to the situation.

that is irrelevant. nothingness is unobservable. there's nothing to observe.

Summary of the thread:

wew lad

DUDE LOGIC LMAO

File: n8J8ob1.jpg (854KB, 901x2830px) Image search: [Google]

854KB, 901x2830px

>>8697126
OK listen here you little faggot.

If you understood transcendental idealism then you would realize we already don't live in an "objective" reality, only a phenomenal one of sense-data generated by our rational faculty. The a priori categories of experience apply to the object of our experience and are what we know.

Retroactively, the noumena which generate sense-perception become logically impossible, their content is identical to nothing as they can not be ascribed any property or have any relation to anything other than themselves.

This gives rise to Hegelian Absolute Idealism that asserts that what is real is rational and what is rational is real. We all live in a "theoretical" reality because reality is entirely rational and an ongoing process of realizing The Absolute.

It does not assert the existence of any "physical" reality but merely a rational one and it begins by examining contradictory claims through dialectical logic, namely the ideas of "Being" and "Nothing" which require each other to exist but contradict each other in that they are both completely indeterminate and thus fall into each other.

But by examining to be a part of the same process, becoming, they retroactively can be thought of in a correct fashion, "Coming-to-be" and "Ceasing-to-be." Through this new process we can have determinate being.

The dialectical nature of reality asserts a constant process of sublation of contradictions that results in Absolute Understanding, Truth, and Consciousness when finished. The most logical and true "thing" will arise by the completion of this process which we are a part of, the most logical thing is to go about pushing this process forward and resolving contradictions (doing philosophy in a dialectical manner).

>>8698571
What OP is truly failing to realize is that contradiction is actually the mode of thought to begin with, and the sublation of contradiction is a process that builds rather than destroys essentially.

>this is how things are

Spooked.

>>8698152
sorry, i dont think i explained myself properly.
I understand the point you make about the conclusions reached when you rely solely on reason. I just don't understand how those conclusions about logic and reason translates to committing suicide, or a will to live.
Surely, if you are saying that life and death are essentially equal in nature, then I agree with you completely. if not, then it'd be great for you to explain what i'm not understanding.

>>8697174
It takes one to know one, but holy shite you are an intelligent idiotic smart retard

>>8698571
>Walter Benjamin
DROPPED
R
O
P
P
E
D

File: smugstirner.jpg (3KB, 119x104px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 119x104px

The answer is obvious

life is a spook

>>8697174
So, because it would be impossible to find such evidence, we should assume one way or the other.

Example ripped from wikipedia.
Suppose I tell you that there is an elephant in your backyard. You have a quick glance in your backyard, and see no elephant. This is an absence of evidence where evidence should be available, that is, if there was an elephant in your backyard, you'd see it with a quick glance. Now, let's say I say there's a spider in your backyard. You have a quick glance but don't see it. According to your logic, it would only be safe to assume that there is no spider, because there is no evidence of it. This is obviously ludicrous.

>>8697193
Yes, science has accepted some things to be true without empirical evidence before. In these cases, they make a hypothesis about what the empirical evidence will be, do their best to verify it without the empirical evidence, and when that fails, they just go looking for the empirical evidence. They ensure that the claim is falsifiable.

Your claims are not falsifiable without killing ourselves, and when we do that, we are unable to record the results in a way for others to see. So, if you're wrong, we have no way of identifying this. Which is probably the worst thing you can do in science, because your argument is not only not right, it is not even wrong.

TL;DR

>>8697524
If god exists, it would be possible to obtain evidence about it, by determining specific properties about this entity and demonstrating that a being with those specific properties exists.

If god exists, then it is obviously impossible to prove that god does not exist.

If god does not exist, then it is not possible to prove that god does exist.

If god does not exist, then it is impossible to prove that he does not exist (We could only prove that specific versions of god do not exist).

So, it is possible to prove that god exists, but impossible to prove that god does not exist. Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

Thus, a proof of god exists.

You buying that? Didn't think so.

>>8699816
TL;DR: OP is a dumb cunt who doesn't believe that we should all kill ourselves, but wants to convince us that he does, and that we should as well.

>>8692206
The thing is though, OP can't even get logic right. He doesn't have any more than a pop culture understanding of it.

>>8698126

Actually, another problem with your viewpoint here. The guy who wrote the proof for sqrt(2) is irrational (or, more accurately, the guy who wrote a proof to claim that there were no two integers A and B such that 2A^2 = B^2)... That guy had a whole world of evidence that everything was rational. Pythagorean logic at the time said that there must exist two integers such that 2A^2 = B^2. They just hadn't found it yet.

So, at the time, some dude went and looked for a proof that no two numbers met that criteria. He had no reason to believe that such a proof would exist, it was almost religious dogma that no such proof would exist. (To the point that, once he found it, he was killed, coz that would have destroyed the narrative).

Once again, no evidence that a proof existed, yet the mathematician went and looked for one.

Mathematicians are looking for a proof of the twin-prime conjecture (which states that there are an infinite number of pairs of primes such that the first is two smaller than the second, e.g. 3,5 or 5,7). We don't know it's true. We think it might be, but that's as good as we've got. We haven't found an infinite number of these prime pairs that are 2 apart. (If we had, we could just prove that this is an infinite sequence and call it a day).

So, we are looking for something that we have no evidence should exist. You repeatedly claim that this is illogical. Therefore, you claim that the current research being done by mathematicians is illogical.

>>8698571
>>8698588

I do not assert that all people or that philosophy thinks we live in objective reality. I assert that it is the current scientific assumption and the current societal belief that this existence is objective, or at least if it is not objective has some objective meaning.

Philosophers have indeed been challenging this notion for many years, but clearly none of them have come to the scientific understanding, the true realization of The Absolute you describe. I propose I have come to this realization, and that just because it seems I may not have is not sufficient evidence that I have not. If objective truth is possible, it is possible I have reached it.

>>8698819
It's a bit complicated - they are equal in the sense that you seem able to choose, so if the meaning of life is not forced upon us, we are able to subjectively deny it with our personal worldview. I assert that free will is truly a joke, not for the conventional reasons but rather because your method for choice is not something you can choose; therefore to assert free will you must give up free will and surrender to the conclusions of logic, whatever they may be. If your subjective conclusion is to live in the delusion that your existence is worth perpetuating past the true objective understanding that it is not, what that means essentially is that you're committed to being mentally unhealthy.

>>8698966
Well, just because it seems like I'm wrong doesn't mean I am.

>>8699114
A spooky joke :^)

>>8699804
No, it would be safe to assume there was no spider if you had methodically searched for a spider with such a method that the spider escaping your search would be logically impossible.

No... Looking for evidence on say, the elements added to the periodic table is pointless - the evidence exists but is impossible for us to observe. That is the case with this evidence. Therefore, until we can observe it (and potentially discover we were wrong after all, these elements don't exist) we will assume the elements exist. That is what Chemistry is doing right now, and that is strong Science.

My claims are falsifiable, because if Science agrees with my premises and methodology but disagrees with action upon my proposed conclusions until empirical evidence about the action is presented, then I will personally present the empirical evidence.

>>8699824
you swapped terms in the middle... your 3rd line says that it is not possible to prove that god exists. Therefore, that contradicts your conclusion. Therefore, you misused the principles involved. Moron.

>>8699868
Wrong :) I do think we should all kill ourselves, me especially and included.

>>8700347
Here's a random possibility: maybe you describe yourself :)

>>8700426
The distinct difference between these things is that because math is codified logic, we know that empirical evidence of the truth of a mathematical statement IS possible if the statement is possible, because mathematical empirical proof is logical proof, and a logically flawless answer is always possible in a problem contained by logic (a math problem).

File: whoo.gif (37KB, 526x800px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 526x800px

>>8700767
>
Philosophers have indeed been challenging this notion for many years, but clearly none of them have come to the scientific understanding, the true realization of The Absolute you describe. I propose I have come to this realization, and that just because it seems I may not have is not sufficient evidence that I have not. If objective truth is possible, it is possible I have reached it.

No you haven't you arrogant shitter, because absolute understanding has to be reached dialectically through sublation of contradiction, not autistic rejection whenever contradiction is revealed.

By conceding to even simple Kantian transcendental idealism you have to concede to a rational reality that cannot be illogical. If you concede to this, you have to concede to dialectical logic, and you fail to use dialectical logic and thus fail to actually reach a valid conclusion.

Thought i.e spirit is the very nature of reality, not data, and spirit is currently developing towards The Absolute. If The Absolute had been achieved, history would stop, so you haven't fucking achieved The Absolute. Claiming to have achieved The Absolute is the most arrogant thing anyone can actually do, no one has ever claimed this before because simply picking up a newspaper and seeing that things are still going on as usual is disproof of such a matter. Unless people are spontaneously organizing into communes and mind-merging as we speak I severely doubt your claim of absolute understanding.

>>8700848
your misunderstanding is proposing that this universe is the only vehicle towards the absolute. This universe is one stop on the infinite road to the absolute, and this particular stop has concluded. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about, because you haven't made a true attempt to understand the ideology I propose.

Guys, OP here. You know what - I just reevaluated my life and see I'm a fool and an idiot caught up in shallow speculation I used to call 'logic' unaware of the obvious limits of this tool and concept.. I am now going to start reading some proper, transcendentalist philosophy and I will start with the Upanishads and the base practice of yogic exercise.
Sorry for wasting everybody's time! I'm a giant idiot. Nothing to see here.

>>8700863
No you shithead, Spirit is the vehicle and spirit has not concluded by virtue of the fact that we're still disagreeing about shit.

>>8700870
Man what an original hilarious joke, where do you find the comedy genius necessary for the distillation of such hilarity?

>>8700881
Correct, I propose my idea is the thing we will all agree on in the end. Don't you agree that's possible? I've just recently come up with it, it's still not presented in the most flawless way possible, of course we are disagreeing now. It IS possible my answer is THE answer. I merely say I believe this true. That's not particularly flawed lmao.

>>8700791

Lemme try rephrasing, coz I didn't realize how much of a moron you were...

Premises
1) If god does exist, a proof for god's existence is possible.
2) If god does exist, then a proof for god's non-existence is not possible.
3) If god does not exist, then a proof for god's existence is not possible.
4) If god does not exist, then a proof for god's non-existence is not possible.

From premise 1, we see that it is possible for a world to exist in which a proof of god's existence is possible. From premises 2 and 4, we see that it is impossible for a world to exist in which a proof of god's nonexistence is possible. By "The law of logic that implies that OP is a moron", if we eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth.

Since it is impossible to disprove god's existence, and it is possible to prove god's existence, thus it must be possible to prove god's existence.

Hence, god must exist.

That's what happens when we apply the logic from >>8697524 to the existence of god.

>>8700887
Where do you find the hilarity of not even being smart enough to get a tripcode, you dumb fag?

>>8700889
You are varying the condition you fucking idiot...

For instance:
It is impossible to empirically prove God exists, and impossible to empirically prove God does not exist.

It is possible to logically prove that God does not exist, and impossible to logically prove that God does not exist.

Therefore, if there is logical evidence that God exists that is consistent with ALL principles of logic, God exists.

I have presented said logical evidence, you have not.

>>8700887
it's impossible because you still haven't explained how nothingness is observable. you've mischaracterised nothingness as being an 'empty space' i.e. having dimension which is just straight up wrong. obviously you'd need someone neutral to the conditions of nothingness in order to attempt an observation and gather data but there's literally nothing to observe. and if someone is neutral to these conditions the data can only exist neutral to the conditions (in the neutral observer), so data can't exist in nothingness or else it wouldn't be nothing

since you haven't proven that 'data is' then i can't progress with the rest of your argument

>>8700895
I just don't care you shithead? Lmao
I'm not interested in how clever you think you can be by imitating me kek

>>8697524
>Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth
Please don't tell me you seriously believe that.

>>8700767

>>8698819 here again.
I dont know. Although i might word it a little differently, I understand your point and mostly agree with what you say. What still gets me is the end where you claim that continuing to live is to be committed to being mentally unhealthy, and from your previous posts you seem to imply that in order to prevent this the human race should mass suicide.

Why does the "mental health" of the race matter?

And when I say that life and death are equal, I mean that neither of them truly exist. When you say that life and death are in equal some sense, are they not equal in a different context?

>>8700895
Sorry dude, I didn't mean that... I'm a little on edge right now. I think my autism medicine is running out. Don't take anything I've been saying here personal - or seriously, for that matter.

>>8700905
It's a logically flawless fact, providing you can be certain you have all the relevant information.

>>8700905
Yes I see your point: There may be several improbables left after this, which by my crude attempt at "logic" would likely all be the truth. Sorry. I'm not really that clever actually.

>>8700887
If you accept this you must accept dialectical logic which you clearly do not, given your incredible misunderstanding of spirit.

Humans are fundamentally spirit and progress as such with nature as the base. "The universe" is entirely constructed by rationality, this includes all "theoretical universes' which are really all part of the same world-spirit. You could say that this world may not be the one where we achieve the absolute, but you would have to somehow distinguish this-world from that-world.

Your conclusion, that thought is inconsistent with itself, falls apart in the face of dialectical logic which shows how inconsistency is the nature of thought, and is entirely logical as each contradiction is sublated. The conclusion of this is not a cessation of thought, but a unity of thought with itself, as well as the unity of thought and being. You have not achieved this, if you did, you wouldn't be posting on a fucking imageboard. It is impossible for an individual to achieve The Absolute anyways, it is a historical realization, the sum of all human culture and thought, the realization of The Absolute would be a spontaneous and simultaneous event of all human society and is likely in the distant post-human future.

Your committing the philosophical sin of using solely pure argumentative philosophy, that only grasps the outer nature of concepts, while utterly failing to even consider the basic premises of speculative, dialectical philosophy which can grasp the inner nature.

Logic is not consistency as you claim, but the art of sublating contradiction and identifying new ones. You stop at one contradiction and claim that all thought is bunk instead of seeing the further task of thought, and not only that, but the contradiction you've reached has been reached through invalid methods of thought.

>>8700928
>>8700914
>>8700895
>>8700870
Just gonna continue to reply to this post with every reply from this dickhead to differentiate between he and I :)

>>8683638
This shit reads like you're 22 or something. You definitely need to read more before you put out pseudo-scientific stuff like that.

>>8700944
Oops forgot this one >>8700915

>>8700952
That's an interesting opinion :) Just because you think it sounds dumb doesn't necessarily mean it is.

>>8700906
Because if we commit to live in delusion, such a state is unsustainable. If you are living in a delusion, how are you to know when the delusion starts to account for more than just the necessary facts - how are you to know when the delusion morphs to make your world friendlier than it truly is, and you become the definition of unhinged. I think if you accept that you are mentally unhealthy, to allow that to perpetuate is to invite insanity.

>>8700931
It's possible you just misunderstand my representation, and you are trying to say the same thing I have said.

If you think I have reached it through invalid methods of thought, demonstrate that to be fact.

And no, logic is not art mate, logic is consistently reliably factually accurate. That's THE IDEA.

File: memwe.png (5KB, 286x84px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 286x84px

>>8700960
you're a fucking moron :)
https://gyazo.com/c223f6ed89a3885aa28e6109efa59c6c

>>8700944
just get a trip.

>>8700976
>not understanding "art" as a figure of speech.
Kill yourself.

Your method of reaching absolute understanding of reality is not a dialectical one, and you seem to have admitted the existence of the dialectical development of spirit.

You're claiming that you've built a wooden house without any wood.

>>8700988

No. I am claiming that just because your understanding of my language isn't consistent with your understanding of the universe, doesn't mean my language isn't consistent with your understanding. I merely suggest your misunderstanding is responsible for the flaws you think you can see in my representation.

>>8700994
Are you reading what I am saying?

You are NOT using dialectical logic! That is my criticism of your claim of having achieved absolute understanding.

Point out when and where you are using dialectical logic.

>>8700803
What? No, seriously, what? You are clearly out of your depth...

Okay... Let's consider one such problem. Consider the set of all natural numbers N = [0, 1, 2, 3, ..). Next, consider the set of all real numbers R.

So, here's where it gets a bit weird. Consider all the rational real numbers, let's call it F (for fractions). That is, the set of R after we remove all irrational numbers (e.g. square root of 2, pi, etc...). You can define a 1 for 1 ratio between the set N and the set F. That is, there is a function f that takes an element of N and outputs an element of F, and that each element of F is outputted exactly once. This does not apply to the set of reals R. So, the size of N is equal to the size of F, but smaller than the size of R.

It has been proven that it is impossible to prove that a set S exists that is larger than N and smaller than R.

We know we can't prove everything in mathematics. This has been mathematically proven.

>>8701050
Oh. Just to clarify, it is also impossible to prove that a set S does not exist.

>>8701050
>>8701054
You are the one who is misunderstanding here.
First of all, if F considers fractional numbers whereas N does not, then F is a greater infinity than N and thus There is not a 1:1 ratio between them...
Additonally, if the premise was true, then it WOULD be logically possible to prove the conclusion. Simply because it has not been done does not indicate it has been mathematically demonstrated that proof is impossible...?

>>8701075
I don't think you understand what a 1:1 ratio is in mathematics.

>>8701081
I don't think you quite grasp the concept of infinity, and maybe you should study Set Theory a bit more carefully friend :)

>>8701081
in regard to functions, I mean.

I'm not the original poster of the math theorem.

>>8683638
Retarded /lit/eraries like whose philosophy's are actually just psychology pseud theories really need to off themselves. The only philosophy worth pursuing is analytic philosophy and it does not deal with such silly matters. Off yourselves.

>>8701020
You still haven't answered this question.

File: godel.jpg (13KB, 200x243px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x243px

lol

>>8701075
>greater infinity

>>8683638
>Uses logic to prove relativity exists
>Uses relativity to prove logic exists
>'Nothingness' is empty space
>'Lets hypothetically imagine a being outside spacetime to observe nothingness'

How has this shit thread gone on so long?

>>8701152
it's the gift that keeps on giving

>>8701166
herpes posting now exists

File: fuckoff.jpg (40KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 500x500px

This is quite possibly the shittiest thread ever posted on /lit/.

Can someone screenshot this thread?

File: Capture.jpg (45KB, 395x508px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 395x508px

>>8701225

File: 1478134253067.png (704KB, 864x539px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 864x539px

>>8701235
This is quite possibly the shittiest screenshot ever posted on /lit/

Can someone screenshot this screenshot?

>>8701075
Are there more even numbers or positive integers? If you answered "positive", you're actually wrong. For every positive integer you can name, I can name 2 even numbers, and if you never repeat a positive integer, I'll never repeat an even number. I'll even show you how:
Let's say you give me 3. I multiply 3 by 4, and get 12. That's my first number. I then add 2 to that, and get 14. That's my second number.

If you give me an integer x, I'll give you 4x and 4x+2.

By this logic, there are clearly twice as many even numbers as there are positive integers.

The problem is, when we get into dealing with infinites, we can't really work with the same logic.

If you want a better understanding of this, look up countably infinite.

So, with this in mind, we say two infinite sets are equal in size if there exists a 1:1 relation between them. For the set of even numbers and the set of positive numbers, I can go between them by halving the numbers in the set of evens, or doubling the numbers in the set of positives. These are both 1:1 relations.

I won't go into how, but the set of rational numbers (aka fractions) do similar. And real numbers do not.

And, yes. There is a proof that shows that such a proof does not exist. But it doesn't show that the inverse is true.

Maths is not as simple as you might think...

>>8701431
Both of the numbers you are naming are already in the set you idiot... That logic is flawed because you assume you may place a number in your set of even numbers twice. If you performed that logic for the entire infinite set of positive integers, you would have an equivalent set of even numbers, not double. You misunderstand basic logic if you believe you are able to double the quantity in a set by applying the logic in steps...

Math IS as simple as I think mate.
You cannot propose an equivalency between a set of Real Numbers (or integers) and the set of Rational numbers (fractions); these sets are distinctly different in quantity of values.

>>8701094
>>8701166
>>8701181
>>8701225
>>8701235
>>8701242
Nice memes friends :)

>>8701104
I'll answer this when I am home on a computer, a lengthy response is difficult on a phone.

>>8701493
>>8701104
>>8701020
You are asking for me to write it in dialectal logic? I believe I have; what are you disagreeing about? I describe this existence as a theoretical instance of the concept of an idea. I use Set Theory to explain the Set of all things that are, and the origin of the contents of that set. I have used formal logic to predict what is 'in principle' unpredictable from the basis of formal logic. The fact that I believe I have done something that is in principle impossible, means that that analysis is flawed, not that my proof is necessarily flawed. The dialectal logic I use is that this is the idea of an idea, an instance of a class called ideas, which is the true class that instantiated everything.

>>8701524
My theory could experience dialectal change if there were any contradictions in it. Since there are no contradictions to solve, my representation is the objective truth unless there is a contradiction that has, as of yet, not been identified.

>>8701542
not responding to things doesn't mean no one has identified the problems

>>8701570
If no response specifies a contradiction, it can safely be assumed there currently are no identified contradictions.

>>8701481
Let's try a simplification, because OP is an idiot.

I can create a list of all natural numbers (positive whole numbers). It would be infinitely long, but it would start as [1, 2, 3, 4, ..)

I can create a list of all even numbers. It would, once again, be infinitely long, but it would start as [2, 4, 6, 8, ..).

I can create a list of all integers (so, zero, positive whole numbers, and negative whole numbers). Infinitely long, but [0, 1, -1, 2, -2, 3, -3, 4, -4, ..)

I can create a list of all rational numbers (any number which can be expressed as the ratio of two integers). Once again, infinitely long, but [0, 1/1, -1/1, 2/1, -2/1, 1/2, -1/2, 3/1, -3/1, 1/3, -1/3, 4/1, -4/1, 3/2, -3/2, 2/3, -2/3, 1/4, -1/4, 5/1, -5/1, 1/5, -1/5, ..)

If I can create an infinitely long list to represent all of something without duplicates, then I can create a matching between the natural numbers and that list. The matching would match N to the Nth element of that list. Also, this matching would be 1:1.

Therefore, we talk about these as equal in size.

I cannot create a list of all rational numbers between 0 and 1.
Proof: Suppose that you could create a list of all rational numbers. Let L be such a list. Construct a new number as follows:
The number is 0 before the decimal point.
If the kth digit of the kth number on the list L is even, then the kth digit of the new number is 1.
If the kth digit of the kth number on the list L is odd, then the kth digit of the new number is 0.

The new number is greater than 0, and smaller than 1. Additionally, it is rational. However, the new number cannot be on the list L, as it has at least one digit different to each element in the list.
Hence, we have a contradiction.
Therefore, no such list can exist.

I cannot create a list of all rational numbers.
Proof: Suppose that you could create a list of all rational numbers. Then, you could make a second list by eliminating all elements of such a list that are larger than 1 or smaller than 0. This second list would contain all rational numbers between 0 and 1, which would contradict the above thing. Hence, such a list is impossible.

These lists of rational numbers are uncountably infinite.

We are incapable of making a 1:1 pairing between a countably infinite set and an uncountably infinite set. There is a 1:many pairing. That is, if you give me the set of all natural numbers, I can create an infinite set of rational numbers for each natural number, and each of these infinite sets contains no common element. As a result, we say that the uncountably infinite set is of larger size than the countably infinite set.

So, the question becomes: Do two sets, A and B, exist, such that I cannot make a 1:1 pairing between them, but I can create a 1:many pairing.

It has been proven that it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of such a pair of sets.

>>8701542
I'm pointing out a flaw. It is not safe to assume that X is false, just because there is no evidence that X is true. Logic don't work like that.

At best, it might be ok to assume it's false. But, even then, it's risky business.

>>8701653
I don't say this, and if you think I do then you plain and simply do not understand what you've read.

>>8701649
Thus if it is accepted to be impossible to prove or disprove using logical evidence, if there were other evidence to consider, that evidence would become the sole evidence.

The original example attempted to say that because there was evidence that a proof could not be constructed, that cannot mean something. I agree; this cannot mean anything, except that which is explicit.

I do not purport something being impossible to mean something in and of itself. I say that if X is impossible and Y is possible, then Y is the logical assumption.
You are saying X is not provably possible and X is not provably impossible, therefore there is no reason to think Y. I agree. No shit. I have not said what you think I am saying.

Oh, also... Your proof that data exists breaks down when you also claim that we are unable to determine what happened at the time of the big bang.

If we are unable to determine it, that means it is impossible to observe. Therefore, it is impossible to be an observer to that time. Therefore, it is impossible to create observations of that time. With no observations, it is impossible to have data.

So, either your proof is bullshit, or it is possible to obtain evidence about what happened at the time of the big bang. You can't have both.

>>8701662
Actually, no. The conclusion to make here is that we don't know. It sucks, but that's all we've got.

>>8701663
I am able to determine it. It is possible to observe, we just cannot observe it since we did not exist then... It was observable, we just were not there to observe it and to attempt to speculate on what we would have observed is never going to confirm or deny any of our speculations. Therefore, those speculations are pointless unless they are supported by sufficient logical evidence. My speculations on what occurred, what the singularity was and where it came from ARE sufficiently supported by logic; they are the first of their kind.

>>8701668
Correct, the conclusion to make is that we don't know, and SINCE we do not know, we must rely on the information available. If my information is truly the most complete information, which I propose it is, then action upon that information becomes warranted in a way that it has never been before.

>>8701655
Haha!

>There is currently no empirical or logical evidence of a god or a purpose, therefore logically we should assume neither exist until new information presents itself.

This step. Right here. At best, it might be ok to assume it's false. But, even then, it's risky business.

And, even if it was safe to do so, IT'S A FUCKING PREMISE! You can't assume it mid-proof. As a result, your proof is not valid, and therefore, not sound.

>>8701668
>>8701662
And yeah, of course saying Y is possible is not a good enough reason to say Y is true.
I am saying, if X is impossible, and Y is possible, and X is without explanation, and Y has an explanation, assume Y.
That is correct.

>>8701672
I agree, it's a premise and should be at the beginning; I have had this pointed out to me. The fact that I assume it mid proof doesn't actually flaw the process, it simply makes it informal (which is a type of formatting flaw, not a critical flaw in ideas)