Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

The Logical deduction of the Is Ought problem

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 10:27:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: be patient with me this may take a few days but here is the beginning.

The Fool: okay here is a hint. but I would rather start new thread ..

What is IS and what is not, does not exist.

This is my favorite argument. its so simple and yet so powerfull. Its by Parmidies.
I would even Call it THE LAW OF TRUTH. But because that sound so authoritive I would catch alot of flak and hate. But in my logical system it is the law of Truth. Its the most fundemental necessity for anything. For anything must be its self. And what IS exist. Or we couldn't even talk about it, if it was not atlease and idea.

For even Truth=Truth. The equal sign is not and inference because denots that they are infact the same idea.

We can see quickly that to break that law, is where why a contradiction is always False. as in Truth=false is a to brake the law of truth.
Its to say what is=is not.

But I want you to pay close attention . . That even when I say (is not) that is a contradiction. because I am saying( it is the case) that (it is not the case. )
Another reason what we should avoid negative sentences.

It is also synonomous with 1=1. If you know your pythagoras well you know that 1 is not even technacally number. Nor 0
1 is the symbol of existence/truth. I am giving away some things I would want to save for publishing he. lol.

Anyways in relation to Hume. Ought is, if if wasen't it could not exist. Its a false dichotomy to say that Ought is not an Is or it wouldn't exist. But we do know what we mean when we say it. Therefore it represense and idea.

"Words" refer to 'idea' and then the has and 'object'.
So its a matter of deducing logically what what the object of the idea of 'Ought'

Its would take me a few moments to give that logical deduction. Give me a bit I will do it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 10:34:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
‘Everybody desires what good, but it is just a matter of ignorance of how we achieve it.' Socrates.

1.So a hypothetical imperative would be that we ought to build a boat if we desire to cross the river. But we desire this because we think it is good.

2.So another hypothetical imperative is that if we desire to cross the river we should build a Boat.

3.Another hypothetical is that we should do what we desire so we ought to build a boat. To cross the river.(what we think it good)

Oughtness is a synonym of shouldness but we should do what we desire and that is the Good.

Proof: Proof of synonyms.

1.If I say we should do what is good.
2.If I say we ought to do what is good.
3.If I say we desire to do what is good.
4.So we ought to do what we desire and so we should do what is good.

More formulations:

So we desire to do what we ought and we should do what is good.

So we should do what we desire and we ought do what is good.

So we ought do what we should and we desire do what is good.

Last set to drive it home!

1. So we ought to do what we desire which is the Good.

2. So we desire to do what we ought which is the Good.

3. So we should do what we desire which is the Good.

4. So we desire to do what we should which is the Good.

therefore ought=should=desire
Therefore the 'objec't of the' idea' of ‘ought' and ‘should' is Desire.

Ought has been discovered. And desires are our motivations, and the end are the satifaction of these desires.

Part of the formula of The Good in itself.

I will break this down further. Of fix any bugs me I am taking a break for now.

That was a pain in the azz.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:24:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 10:27:37 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: be patient with me this may take a few days but here is the beginning.

The Fool: okay here is a hint. but I would rather start new thread ..

What is IS and what is not, does not exist.

This is my favorite argument. its so simple and yet so powerfull. Its by Parmidies.
I would even Call it THE LAW OF TRUTH. But because that sound so authoritive I would catch alot of flak and hate. But in my logical system it is the law of Truth. Its the most fundemental necessity for anything. For anything must be its self. And what IS exist. Or we couldn't even talk about it, if it was not atlease and idea.

For even Truth=Truth. The equal sign is not and inference because denots that they are infact the same idea.

We can see quickly that to break that law, is where why a contradiction is always False. as in Truth=false is a to brake the law of truth.
Its to say what is=is not.

But I want you to pay close attention . . That even when I say (is not) that is a contradiction. because I am saying( it is the case) that (it is not the case. )
Another reason what we should avoid negative sentences.

It is also synonomous with 1=1. If you know your pythagoras well you know that 1 is not even technacally number. Nor 0
1 is the symbol of existence/truth. I am giving away some things I would want to save for publishing he. lol.

Anyways in relation to Hume. Ought is, if if wasen't it could not exist. Its a false dichotomy to say that Ought is not an Is or it wouldn't exist. But we do know what we mean when we say it. Therefore it represense and idea.

"Words" refer to 'idea' and then the has and 'object'.
So its a matter of deducing logically what what the object of the idea of 'Ought'

Its would take me a few moments to give that logical deduction. Give me a bit I will do it.

Yeah...so...first of all "is not" does not count as a contradiction in first order logic anymore than "or" or "and" or "if...then" is one.

I'm just going to let you keep that whole "1 is the symbol of life" bit secret for the book.

Would you mind showing me a source for any human in history that has tried to prove something logically through "Proof of Synonyms?"

Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

Heck, I dare you to translate ANY of those four statements into boolean operators.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:34:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:24:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 10:27:37 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: be patient with me this may take a few days but here is the beginning.

The Fool: okay here is a hint. but I would rather start new thread ..

What is IS and what is not, does not exist.

This is my favorite argument. its so simple and yet so powerfull. Its by Parmidies.
I would even Call it THE LAW OF TRUTH. But because that sound so authoritive I would catch alot of flak and hate. But in my logical system it is the law of Truth. Its the most fundemental necessity for anything. For anything must be its self. And what IS exist. Or we couldn't even talk about it, if it was not atlease and idea.

For even Truth=Truth. The equal sign is not and inference because denots that they are infact the same idea.

We can see quickly that to break that law, is where why a contradiction is always False. as in Truth=false is a to brake the law of truth.
Its to say what is=is not.

But I want you to pay close attention . . That even when I say (is not) that is a contradiction. because I am saying( it is the case) that (it is not the case. )
Another reason what we should avoid negative sentences.

It is also synonomous with 1=1. If you know your pythagoras well you know that 1 is not even technacally number. Nor 0
1 is the symbol of existence/truth. I am giving away some things I would want to save for publishing he. lol.

Anyways in relation to Hume. Ought is, if if wasen't it could not exist. Its a false dichotomy to say that Ought is not an Is or it wouldn't exist. But we do know what we mean when we say it. Therefore it represense and idea.

"Words" refer to 'idea' and then the has and 'object'.
So its a matter of deducing logically what what the object of the idea of 'Ought'

Its would take me a few moments to give that logical deduction. Give me a bit I will do it.

Yeah...so...first of all "is not" does not count as a contradiction in first order logic anymore than "or" or "and" or "if...then" is one.

The Fool: Honestly wnope my logic is well advanced beyond that. I have written a much more power logic, so it is useless to appeal to other logics.

I'm just going to let you keep that whole "1 is the symbol of life" bit secret for the book.

The Fool: I don't care if you don;t get it .

Would you mind showing me a source for any human in history that has tried to prove something logically through "Proof of Synonyms?"

The Fool: Wnope I don't care if you don't get this one. You need your own critical thinking skills here. You should know better.

Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

The Fool: I have an infinite predicate order logic. you can't even find it anywhere. You couldn't learn it right now if you wanted to unless you know how to write logical systems.

Heck, I dare you to translate ANY of those four statements into boolean operators.

The Fool: its irrevent. I don't think you get the process here.

The Fool: I don't care if you don't get this one.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:34:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 1:24:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 10:27:37 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: be patient with me this may take a few days but here is the beginning.

The Fool: okay here is a hint. but I would rather start new thread ..

What is IS and what is not, does not exist.

This is my favorite argument. its so simple and yet so powerfull. Its by Parmidies.
I would even Call it THE LAW OF TRUTH. But because that sound so authoritive I would catch alot of flak and hate. But in my logical system it is the law of Truth. Its the most fundemental necessity for anything. For anything must be its self. And what IS exist. Or we couldn't even talk about it, if it was not atlease and idea.

For even Truth=Truth. The equal sign is not and inference because denots that they are infact the same idea.

We can see quickly that to break that law, is where why a contradiction is always False. as in Truth=false is a to brake the law of truth.
Its to say what is=is not.

But I want you to pay close attention . . That even when I say (is not) that is a contradiction. because I am saying( it is the case) that (it is not the case. )
Another reason what we should avoid negative sentences.

It is also synonomous with 1=1. If you know your pythagoras well you know that 1 is not even technacally number. Nor 0
1 is the symbol of existence/truth. I am giving away some things I would want to save for publishing he. lol.

Anyways in relation to Hume. Ought is, if if wasen't it could not exist. Its a false dichotomy to say that Ought is not an Is or it wouldn't exist. But we do know what we mean when we say it. Therefore it represense and idea.

"Words" refer to 'idea' and then the has and 'object'.
So its a matter of deducing logically what what the object of the idea of 'Ought'

Its would take me a few moments to give that logical deduction. Give me a bit I will do it.

Yeah...so...first of all "is not" does not count as a contradiction in first order logic anymore than "or" or "and" or "if...then" is one.

The Fool: Honestly wnope my logic is well advanced beyond that. I have written a much more power logic, so it is useless to appeal to other logics.

I'm just going to let you keep that whole "1 is the symbol of life" bit secret for the book.

The Fool: I don't care if you don;t get it .

Would you mind showing me a source for any human in history that has tried to prove something logically through "Proof of Synonyms?"

The Fool: Wnope I don't care if you don't get this one. You need your own critical thinking skills here. You should know better.

Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

The Fool: I have an infinite predicate order logic. you can't even find it anywhere. You couldn't learn it right now if you wanted to unless you know how to write logical systems.

Heck, I dare you to translate ANY of those four statements into boolean operators.

The Fool: its irrevent. I don't think you get the process here.

The Fool: I don't care if you don't get this one.

Sooo.... Infinite Predicate Order Logic doesn't exist....unless you made it up along with "Proof of Synonyms."

And it's a little odd that you took the time to write up a proof involving Is-Ought in a forum based off a thread where Ren and I were discussing is-ought, but when confronted you refuse to even tell me what your process is?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:42:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:39:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 1:34:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 1:24:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 10:27:37 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: be patient with me this may take a few days but here is the beginning.

The Fool: okay here is a hint. but I would rather start new thread ..

What is IS and what is not, does not exist.

This is my favorite argument. its so simple and yet so powerfull. Its by Parmidies.
I would even Call it THE LAW OF TRUTH. But because that sound so authoritive I would catch alot of flak and hate. But in my logical system it is the law of Truth. Its the most fundemental necessity for anything. For anything must be its self. And what IS exist. Or we couldn't even talk about it, if it was not atlease and idea.

For even Truth=Truth. The equal sign is not and inference because denots that they are infact the same idea.

We can see quickly that to break that law, is where why a contradiction is always False. as in Truth=false is a to brake the law of truth.
Its to say what is=is not.

But I want you to pay close attention . . That even when I say (is not) that is a contradiction. because I am saying( it is the case) that (it is not the case. )
Another reason what we should avoid negative sentences.

It is also synonomous with 1=1. If you know your pythagoras well you know that 1 is not even technacally number. Nor 0
1 is the symbol of existence/truth. I am giving away some things I would want to save for publishing he. lol.

Anyways in relation to Hume. Ought is, if if wasen't it could not exist. Its a false dichotomy to say that Ought is not an Is or it wouldn't exist. But we do know what we mean when we say it. Therefore it represense and idea.

"Words" refer to 'idea' and then the has and 'object'.
So its a matter of deducing logically what what the object of the idea of 'Ought'

Its would take me a few moments to give that logical deduction. Give me a bit I will do it.

Yeah...so...first of all "is not" does not count as a contradiction in first order logic anymore than "or" or "and" or "if...then" is one.

The Fool: Honestly wnope my logic is well advanced beyond that. I have written a much more power logic, so it is useless to appeal to other logics.

I'm just going to let you keep that whole "1 is the symbol of life" bit secret for the book.

The Fool: I don't care if you don;t get it .

Would you mind showing me a source for any human in history that has tried to prove something logically through "Proof of Synonyms?"

The Fool: Wnope I don't care if you don't get this one. You need your own critical thinking skills here. You should know better.

Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

The Fool: I have an infinite predicate order logic. you can't even find it anywhere. You couldn't learn it right now if you wanted to unless you know how to write logical systems.

Heck, I dare you to translate ANY of those four statements into boolean operators.

The Fool: its irrevent. I don't think you get the process here.

The Fool: I don't care if you don't get this one.

Sooo.... Infinite Predicate Order Logic doesn't exist....unless you made it up along with "Proof of Synonyms."

And it's a little odd that you took the time to write up a proof involving Is-Ought in a forum based off a thread where Ren and I were discussing is-ought, but when confronted you refuse to even tell me what your process is?

The Fool: I am just not working with you, on this one. What part do you not get that I can write up logical systems. Myself, I said appealing to any existing logic is useless. And I am not concerned about teaching you it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:44:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: If you were able to give positive contrabutions. That we could work together but you are too negative. If you have read Moore you should get it.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:46:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:42:10 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 1:39:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 1:34:43 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 7/13/2012 1:24:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 10:27:37 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: be patient with me this may take a few days but here is the beginning.

The Fool: okay here is a hint. but I would rather start new thread ..

What is IS and what is not, does not exist.

This is my favorite argument. its so simple and yet so powerfull. Its by Parmidies.
I would even Call it THE LAW OF TRUTH. But because that sound so authoritive I would catch alot of flak and hate. But in my logical system it is the law of Truth. Its the most fundemental necessity for anything. For anything must be its self. And what IS exist. Or we couldn't even talk about it, if it was not atlease and idea.

For even Truth=Truth. The equal sign is not and inference because denots that they are infact the same idea.

We can see quickly that to break that law, is where why a contradiction is always False. as in Truth=false is a to brake the law of truth.
Its to say what is=is not.

But I want you to pay close attention . . That even when I say (is not) that is a contradiction. because I am saying( it is the case) that (it is not the case. )
Another reason what we should avoid negative sentences.

It is also synonomous with 1=1. If you know your pythagoras well you know that 1 is not even technacally number. Nor 0
1 is the symbol of existence/truth. I am giving away some things I would want to save for publishing he. lol.

Anyways in relation to Hume. Ought is, if if wasen't it could not exist. Its a false dichotomy to say that Ought is not an Is or it wouldn't exist. But we do know what we mean when we say it. Therefore it represense and idea.

"Words" refer to 'idea' and then the has and 'object'.
So its a matter of deducing logically what what the object of the idea of 'Ought'

Its would take me a few moments to give that logical deduction. Give me a bit I will do it.

Yeah...so...first of all "is not" does not count as a contradiction in first order logic anymore than "or" or "and" or "if...then" is one.

The Fool: Honestly wnope my logic is well advanced beyond that. I have written a much more power logic, so it is useless to appeal to other logics.

I'm just going to let you keep that whole "1 is the symbol of life" bit secret for the book.

The Fool: I don't care if you don;t get it .

Would you mind showing me a source for any human in history that has tried to prove something logically through "Proof of Synonyms?"

The Fool: Wnope I don't care if you don't get this one. You need your own critical thinking skills here. You should know better.

Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

The Fool: I have an infinite predicate order logic. you can't even find it anywhere. You couldn't learn it right now if you wanted to unless you know how to write logical systems.

Heck, I dare you to translate ANY of those four statements into boolean operators.

The Fool: its irrevent. I don't think you get the process here.

The Fool: I don't care if you don't get this one.

Sooo.... Infinite Predicate Order Logic doesn't exist....unless you made it up along with "Proof of Synonyms."

And it's a little odd that you took the time to write up a proof involving Is-Ought in a forum based off a thread where Ren and I were discussing is-ought, but when confronted you refuse to even tell me what your process is?

The Fool: I am just not working with you, on this one. What part do you not get that I can write up logical systems. Myself, I said appealing to any existing logic is useless. And I am not concerned about teaching you it.

So you posted on this website a proof using a never-before-heard-of system of logic that involves incomplete propositions (if....blah) and synonym-based deduction, and you don't plan to tell anyhow how you came to these conclusions?

Do you simply like the sound of your own voice?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:47:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:44:01 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: If you were able to give positive contrabutions. That we could work together but you are too negative. If you have read Moore you should get it.

So if someone else asks, you'll tell them how the "Proof of Synonyms" and "Infinite Predicate Logic" works?

Or will they have to pass some test?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:53:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: if you can't contribute positivly don't bother. Philosophy doesn't work like that. The idea is that we are suppost to be honest searches of wisdom, Competition is suppost to be friendly, It call a Dialect. Where we are suppost to refute each other in a freindly sense that Logical refutation acts as a falsibiablity criteria as in science. and we make progress together. So just Like the scientific method we build a theory, but instead looking for affirmation you look or refutation to test the power of your theory. But its useless witih you can't even tell when you refuted. In this way you build a solid fundation and work your way up. I have ask you in private many times, to stop with th hositility and I can teach you a progessive philosophical learning method. But you can't put you anger beyond you.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 1:57:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:53:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you can't contribute positivly don't bother. Philosophy doesn't work like that. The idea is that we are suppost to be honest searches of wisdom, Competition is suppost to be friendly, It call a Dialect. Where we are suppost to refute each other in a freindly sense that Logical refutation acts as a falsibiablity criteria as in science. and we make progress together. So just Like the scientific method we build a theory, but instead looking for affirmation you look or refutation to test the power of your theory. But its useless witih you can't even tell when you refuted. In this way you build a solid fundation and work your way up. I have ask you in private many times, to stop with th hositility and I can teach you a progessive philosophical learning method. But you can't put you anger beyond you.

So then, if someone else asks, you'll tell them?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 2:02:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: we could get an awsome and progressive learning team on DDO, but its takes cooperations. And people alway get hostile when they debate. even thought they know that is the point. They still get mad.

This reminds me of a psychology experiment. Where they have a guy in a room who is purposly acting like prick. So how it works that the participent are warned that when you go in that room the person will be acting like a prick. and not matter how much they are warned they still keep coming and saying that the person is really a prick. No matter if they know he is acting. They still, come out saying not he is really a prick.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 2:07:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:57:32 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 1:53:16 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: if you can't contribute positivly don't bother. Philosophy doesn't work like that. The idea is that we are suppost to be honest searches of wisdom, Competition is suppost to be friendly, It call a Dialect. Where we are suppost to refute each other in a freindly sense that Logical refutation acts as a falsibiablity criteria as in science. and we make progress together. So just Like the scientific method we build a theory, but instead looking for affirmation you look or refutation to test the power of your theory. But its useless witih you can't even tell when you refuted. In this way you build a solid fundation and work your way up. I have ask you in private many times, to stop with th hositility and I can teach you a progessive philosophical learning method. But you can't put you anger beyond you.

So then, if someone else asks, you'll tell them?

The Fool: Do you have any Goodness in you at all. any virtue of moral, or honor.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 2:59:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 1:24:26 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 10:27:37 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: be patient with me this may take a few days but here is the beginning.

The Fool: okay here is a hint. but I would rather start new thread ..

What is IS and what is not, does not exist.

This is my favorite argument. its so simple and yet so powerfull. Its by Parmidies.
I would even Call it THE LAW OF TRUTH. But because that sound so authoritive I would catch alot of flak and hate. But in my logical system it is the law of Truth. Its the most fundemental necessity for anything. For anything must be its self. And what IS exist. Or we couldn't even talk about it, if it was not atlease and idea.

For even Truth=Truth. The equal sign is not and inference because denots that they are infact the same idea.

We can see quickly that to break that law, is where why a contradiction is always False. as in Truth=false is a to brake the law of truth.
Its to say what is=is not.

But I want you to pay close attention . . That even when I say (is not) that is a contradiction. because I am saying( it is the case) that (it is not the case. )
Another reason what we should avoid negative sentences.

It is also synonomous with 1=1. If you know your pythagoras well you know that 1 is not even technacally number. Nor 0
1 is the symbol of existence/truth. I am giving away some things I would want to save for publishing he. lol.

Anyways in relation to Hume. Ought is, if if wasen't it could not exist. Its a false dichotomy to say that Ought is not an Is or it wouldn't exist. But we do know what we mean when we say it. Therefore it represense and idea.

"Words" refer to 'idea' and then the has and 'object'.
So its a matter of deducing logically what what the object of the idea of 'Ought'

Its would take me a few moments to give that logical deduction. Give me a bit I will do it.

Yeah...so...first of all "is not" does not count as a contradiction in first order logic anymore than "or" or "and" or "if...then" is one.

The Fool: This is hilarious. hahahaa!

I'm just going to let you keep that whole "1 is the symbol of life" bit secret for the book.

The Fool: you don't even know why its true or false.

Would you mind showing me a source for any human in history that has tried to prove something logically through "Proof of Synonyms?"

The Fool: why would I do that.

Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

The Fool: I just did.

Heck, I dare you to translate ANY of those four statements into boolean operators.

The Fool: That is irrevent. Sorry I had to respond this was hilarious. THe first one was the funnyist.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 3:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 2:59:21 PM Wnope wrote:
Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

The Fool: I just did.

So, you, Fool, claim that you have used boolean operators and open variables in this thread?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2012 5:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/13/2012 3:39:22 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 7/13/2012 2:59:21 PM Wnope wrote:
Because I dare you to even try and put and show a first order logic proof of "Proof of Synonyms" (i.e. boolean operators and open variables).

The Fool: I just did.

So, you, Fool, claim that you have used boolean operators and open variables in this thread?

The Fool: I am talking about proof of synonyms. What I did was search for the obeject of idea related to Ought. How you do that, is to demonstrate that there is no difference in meanng of the sentence when I use the other words. I gave you a longer proof of my ethics before but you were skeptical about how I knew what Ought was And here you can see how I derived it. That ought is desire for the Good. There is still a lot of philosophy of motivation I have to show. But Now I just universalize it and I will end up with Kant forth imperitive. The only one I think he got right on the button but he didnt' give a good proof for it. I did. I will end up getting treat people not only means but ends in themselfs.. ANd that will be treating people in relation to what they desire. WHich of course is the good. ITs get more complex but I am so sick of chatting right now. I have been up since yesterday.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL