Essay talk:Observational vs Universal viewpoints

Hope everyone enjoys this essay. I've never written anything of my own accord that didn't fall under the creative writing/storytelling category. falco1029 17:06, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Questions

1. Are you familiar with the idea that what constitutes "truth" depends on the system of logic being used?
2. Are you familiar with the idea that many systems of logic can "prove themselves"?
3. Are you considering that you are trying to present a proof that it is impossible to prove anything?

ListenerX^TalkerX 00:51, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

1. That's pretty much the basis of the essay

2. Such as what? I've never heard that sort of concept and would be happy to read up on such things. I just always assumed that any sort of logic must rely on its own applicability to work.

3. True. Granted it uses conventional logic to prove that conventional logic isn't necessarily true. But proving the possibility of something is different than disproving the opposite, and it's more meant to present the possibility that anything can be wrong. Which, I suppose, makes it possible that it in and of itself can be proven wrong, meaning it's possible that not everything can be proven wrong, which then means it's possibly a true statement that nothing can be proven wrong, which then *goes on like that for all eternity*

Overall I'll admit this all comes from a basic philosophy course and my own line of thought. I'm not overly read up on philosophy and the basic possibilities of logic. falco1029 04:10, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

1. The basis or subject of the essay seems more to be what is true than what constitutes truth. I was referring to, for example, the differences between binary, ternary, and fuzzy systems of logic. So it is up to the individual system of logic to define what is meant by "true."
2. In logic there are concepts of "soundness" and "completeness." In a sound system of logic, every statement that can be inferred is true; in a complete one, vice versa. Many systems of logic (i.a., two conventional ones, propositional and first-order) can prove their own soundness and completeness.
3. Therefore, these two cannot prove themselves "not necessarily true."

ListenerX^TalkerX 15:45, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

1. . The essay gives two base levels of what constitutes truth. The first one given basically is how you explained it, that anything can be inferred is true. The second is another, more fuzzy system, admittedly, which I'll talk about in the answers to the questions below
2. . What you're explaining seems to still rely on logic to prove logic. What constitutes "soundness" and "completeness"? We have definitions of them, but they still rely on on an underlying set of rules. Any man-made logic system, whether rule defined (math) or conventional (thw two examples you gave) still rely on their own truth to prove themselves true. It still all comes down to circular logic.
3. . It's a point of contempt, I suppose, because as my rambling suggested, if you cant prove them "not necessarily true", that means they are indeed true, but since that's the system of logic used to prove they aren't always true, well, you get a bit of a paradox. Admittedly this is bad form, but I am fairly sure in the event of such a paradox you generally default to "not necessarily true".

falco1029 16:36, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

I am reading both of the example views as using the concept of truth used in binary logic, the first one just saying, "It is true that the world is real," the second one requiring proof of that. Am I reading them wrong?

Also, can you clarify what you mean by a system of logic being "true"? Do you mean that each of its rules of inference preserve truth? ListenerX^TalkerX 22:48, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Please note that I am an engineering major, and so I am not as well-read on systems of language, philosophy, and etymology. Can you give me a brief explanation and/or a source that could help explain the different systems of logic you give, as well as any other points you're trying to make? Because I don't want to look stupid by arguing something I may just not have enough experience in.

As for "truth", in the context I'm arguing, i mean universally true, a part of existence in general (a vague and difficult to explain concept, I suppose). 2+2 = 4 in human driven rules of mathematics, and work to explain things such as physics, etc. But they are merely ways of our minds interpreting them base don a set of rules, as evidenced by new mathematical systems for more advanced newly discovered physics, and new refinements to old rules (Newtonian Mechanics to Modern Physics including relativity, for example). In a similar vein, any system of logic we use is merely an interpretation of existence as we know it, although on a much broader, diverse, and general scale. Thus any truth (or proof, in this case) of them is only proof to ourselves, not to...existence (for lack of a better indirect object).

falco1029 23:09, 14 March 2009 (EDT)

Your user page says that you are in computer engineering. Have you studied digital systems design at all? Because I might be able to explain what I mean in those sort of terms. ListenerX^TalkerX 00:08, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Yes I'm finishing up one such class now, actually. I've also taken programming classes and discrete math, so mathematically and digitally speaking, I am quite knowledgeable about proofs and the like. falco1029 00:15, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

(UNINDENT) All right. Consider implementing combinatorial circuits using only NAND gates. As an abstract concept this could be represented mathematically as a system of logic. It defines its own "truth": an electrical high represents "true," an electrical low represents "false," and a NAND gate's output is low iff both of its inputs are high. With this in mind, you can prove universal truths, such as that if you connect wire A to both inputs of a NAND gate, when wire A is high the NAND gate's output will be low, and vice versa. This allows you to make an inverter.

Similarly, you can prove as a universal truth that 2+2=4, since the system of arithmetic defines what "2," "+," "=," and "4" mean. You cannot say the same thing about the laws of physics, which do not define their own truth, and are just inferred from observations. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:01, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah, see that merely proves something is true within given rule sets, that was my basic point overall. We don't live in any known predefined rule sets, so it's hard to prove anything past being true based off their own governing rules. Like you already agreed, math is used for our understanding of physics, but is merely something that's inferred. So conventional logic is our way of inferring reality (same concept in a wider scale). That's my general basis. Does that make sense or am I making some sort of omission or assumption I shouldn't be? falco1029 01:17, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Ah. Well, the rule sets themselves define what "true" means, the same way that time is part of the universe, so asking whether or not something is "true" outside of any rule set is as meaningless as asking, "What happened before the Big Bang?"

(You are not making sense when you say "conventional logic is our way of inferring reality.") ListenerX^TalkerX 01:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm well aware that it's pointless, in terms of useful knowledge and such, but that does indeed form the basis of the "Philosophical" viewpoint explained. falco1029 02:02, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

The section claims that "we can not prove anything," which is overbroad (no mention of rule sets). It also claims that "conventional logic" may not be "correct" or "true," using "true" in the meaningless sense I described above.

Incidentally, this essay could have been titled, "Empiricist vs. Rationalist Viewpoints," in the old sense of the words. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:02, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Again I feel the need to mention that this was merely a way to categorize my own thoughts and views, and perhaps create some insight for those with even less experience in the area than myself (I am fairly sure my essay is easier to follow than most philosophical works), though I know full well that without some substantial research and reference it is nothing publishable or even close to it, thus why I wrote it here; It's complex and sensical enough for the site, thought not researched and reviewed enough for anything more official. Are there any specific sorts of changes or additions you would suggest without dramatically altering the article? Perhaps a segment on rulesets themselves? falco1029 03:22, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Some suggestions:

1. Change the "Philosophical" label, which is misleading since most philosophers subscribe to empiricism.
2. Excise the idea that logic is "incorrect" and focus on the idea that "to start any proof, we must rely on an assumption of some sort" (i.e., making a proof requires a "rule set").
3. In the same vein, qualify the statement that "we cannot prove anything."

ListenerX^TalkerX 13:39, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

(UNINDENT) Alright, I'll do a bit of work on it later today, thanks for your input. falco1029 15:42, 15 March 2009 (EDT)

Updated

Alright, I updated it with some clarifications suggested by ListenerX falco1029 16:50, 15 March 2009 (EDT)