1501) Great Again, 31.05.2021, 01:04, 02:21, 02:38, 23:40 (8330-8333)

Unfortunately, all set diagrams, as well as the Venn diagram, are static, i.e. they always assume an actual state. In reality, however, everything is in motion, everything is history.

My diagram is a dynamic diagram that takes history into account.

Venn is not a god for me.

What kind of nonsense is that (**)?

That is your nonsensical prejudice - largely consisting of irrationality.

I see what becomes, what is and what will become. That has to do with reality. Reality and history (development) belong together. There is nothing irrational about such a statement.

I never said that reality is made by humans, I said that humans decide (in case of doubt) what is known and what is unknown, what is rational and what is irrational; but that humans decide does not mean that humans make all the reality. One is a matter of determination of knowledge, the other is reality. This human behavior is part of the reality, of the history. History and reality belong together - that's what I said. This does not make me someone who denies reality. On the contrary! You don't want to know anything about history and therefore about reality.

I see what has become through humans. This, my insight, has nothing to do with irrationality, except in the sense that I take irrationality into account in everything rational, because I do not ignore irrationality, because it is so strong. I have said that several times. But you probably don't want to or can't understand that. The irrational is more in you than you think. You should allow it. That would be healthier for you.

You are not the first who constantly sanctifies the rational and thereby demonizes the irrational and therefore does not notice how irrational that is.

You are like a little boy who has lost his toy, „rationality“, and is now crying. Crying has a rational and an irrational component. But how exactly that is distributed, no one knows. One can only assume estimates and probabilities. The crying belongs to the reality, however, it is not simply rational or simply irrational, but it is both.

Nobody said that estimates and probabilities were irrational.

1502) Great Again, 01.06.2021, 01:59, 02:07; Otto, 01.06.2021, 02:14, 02:21, 02:28; Kultur, 01.06.2021, 02:14, 02:21, 02:28 (8330-8334)

Clearly, you (**) have understood nothing at all.

Your statement only confirms my previous assumption. Now the little boy is offended.

It is the bubble of pseudo-rationality that you are in. You really believe that all you have to do is keep the irrational far enough away from the rational and then you have your „solution“. Yes, the solution you are seeing right now: The irrational dominates you. That is your „solution“.

Again: You are not the first to constantly sanctify the rational and thus demonize the irrational and therefore not realize how irrational that is.

And again: You have understood absolutely nothing. You show that more and more clearly.

You falsely believe, by saying to „adhere to rationality“, that understanding is not a problem for you. In reality, this is exactly your biggest problem, as you show here more and more clearly. You are stuck in a trap, in the bubble of pseudo-rationality.

You run away from reality, always back into your bubble.

At the same time, you once said a really important sentence in a thread, but you yourself satirically dismissed it in this thread, as if you wanted to draw a caricature of yourself. I have taken this sentence to one of the occasions to open this thread. I did not know at that time how inflexible you are in thinking.

I wonder why you are even posting in this thread, because you obviously don't like the topic of this thread.

I have stated what this thread is about. You want to make it your thread. Then go ahead and make a thread of your own. Good luck with that.

Mathematics is not free of irrationality. But it seems to be the last discipline which is still able to integrate, to include, to control parts of the irrational. Physics has already given up.

Nevertheless, mathematics has problems. And these problems started at the same time as the problems of physics - with the difference I mentioned above.

With mathematics one can do almost everything - thus also nonsense.

With the problems I do not only mean the fundamental crisis, concerning the solution of which formalism, conventionalism and intuitionism opposed each other. Not only this problem has not been solved properly. But it has given another, an important insight: that there are undecidable questions within mathematics (cf. proof of Gödel). On the other hand, definitive proofs of non-contradiction have been given for wide areas of mathematics (cf. Hilbert, Genzen).

Logical considerations play an important role, among other things, in the construction of an antinomy-free set theory and in the general theory of proof. Pioneering work in the field of mathematical logic, which is closely related to the philosophy of mathematics, was done in the 19th century by Frege, in the 20th century by Russel and Whitehead.

I have drawn the undecidability I just spoke about into a diagram in the topic „rational/irrational“ and called this diagram a „dynamic, i.e. historical diagram“. That must be allowed. I don't have to follow guidelines when I want to illustrate something. This is what I meant when I said that „Venn is not a god for me“.The antinomies of set theory speak a clear language (best known example: „set of all sets“ - it must, but must not contain itself), even if one has simply taken them out of set theory. Antinomies appear again and again, and it is the task of history (in this case: the history of science or epistemology) to solve them, to which also the history of philosophy can contribute. No theory can remain static; theories change with the time: that is history (time => change <=> history). There are also still undiscovered antinomies in set theory as in mathematics as a whole.

The bivalence principle (cf. „principium exclusi tertii“ resp. „tertium non datur“) as the principle of bivalence of classical logic, according to which a statement must always be true or false, has been criticized for various reasons and logics have been designed in which it is not valid and in which there are more than two truth values.

There are logic systems which use three and more, even infinite truth values. One speaks of a multivalued logic. Antinomies appear again and again, and it is the task of history (in this case: the history of science or epistemology) to solve them, to which also the history of philosophy can contribute. No theory can remain static, they change with the time: that is history (time => change <=>history). There are also still undiscovered antinomies in set theory as in mathematics as a whole.

According to Gödel's result, one must presuppose an infinite number of truth values, e.g. in a semantics of truth values, which exactly marks out the principles as valid, which are derivable in an intuitionistic calculus. A descriptive interpretation succeeds in the framework of the possible-worlds semantics. The intuitionistic logic is a system of formal logic, which is supposed to satisfy the criticism (!) of the mathematical intuitionists against the modes of reasoning of classical mathematics.

One knows that there are statements which are undecidable. I have pointed to this - and to the fact that the undecidability is changed by the time, i.e. by the change and thus by the history, e.g. its extent is reduced or increased.

Is that you (**)?

That was not even close a guess?

I can guarantee you (**), that was a guess.

You wouldn't happen to be, after the above two, the third sock puppet, would you?

Just joking .... Sorry.

Yup. And thanks for your reply (**|**).

1503) Great Again, 03.06.2021, 01:52, 01:52 (8330-8336)

The two-valued logic is also not suitable for the treatment of propositions about future events, because it implies a false determinism and leaves no space for the freedom of man.

If A is a proposition about future events, then the statement „A is true“ can be more accurately described by the statement „There are (that is: present) causes that force the occurrence of A in the future“, and the statement „A is false“ can be more accurately described by the statement „There are causes that force the occurrence of non-A in the future“.

A sentence like „Bill will be home tomorrow“ will not usually be true or false in this sense, because there are usually no compelling causes that determine Bill's behavior. Thus, to deal with such cases, one must introduce a third truth value, which can be assigned the property „unknown“ or the property „not yet“ (cf. the arrows in my diagram [**|**]), which a proposition A about future things takes on precisely when there are no compelling causes for A or not-A to occur.

A roughly similar argument is already found in Aristotle (the famous example of tomorrow's sea battle).

Not that I would wish the following case, but: Maybe the „physics of psychology“ must already be unnamed in „psychology of physics“.

Almost everything is about to turn around, so that it can also be said that irrationality wrests more and more fields from rationality, although it should be the other way round, if one looks at it from the age of enlightenment (rationalistic optimism).

Perhaps today one, who wants to carry out a physical experiment, must first go through a „psychotherapy“ or/and must present a „certificate“ at the „Institute for social therapy“ (in the context of the „critical theory“ of the Frankfurt school), before he is allowed to carry out such an experiment.

Physics is not only a rational matter. It never was. But it had times when the irrational parts were very small. Today, the irrational parts within physics are growing enormously. So we have again an example where both occur at the same time: rational and irrational. Physics consists of experiment, theory and people (mostly called „physicists“) who influence both the experiments and the theories (cf. Heisenberg's indeterminacy resp. uncertainty principle). The epistemology or philosophy of science can be indifferent from its results (findings, knowledge) whether it is humans or machines (artificial intelligence) who deliver the findings, the knowledge.

1504) Great Again, 04.06.2021, 01:04, 01:08 (8341-8342)

Some have stopped at the state of classical logic, which, however, has long been overhauled, not completely invalid, but partial and therefore considered antiquated.

Their level of knowledge of logic is that which is based on the Aristotelian analytics (Aristotle called „analytics“ what was later to be called „logic“). This logic going back to Aristotle, which I have just called „classical logic“, has had an effect until the 19th century. Then it has become more and more overhauled.

They don't know at all what a huge realm of new knowledge would open up, if they would finally start to respect and soon accept the changes within logic, mathematics, philosophy, linguistics. Throw away all ballast and notice how tiny the rational part is compared to the irrational part and that one must integrate the irrational part if the rational part is not to shrink even faster.

Classical logic includes only propositional logic and predicate logic, in which the principles of forbidden contradiction (principium contradictionis) and excluded third party (principium exclusi tertii) and, related to them, the bivalence principle (see my earlier posts) are valid.

Non-classical logics are those in which at least one of the principles of classical logic is not valid. Particularly important are those systems in which the principle of the excluded third or the bivalence principle is invalid. Such logics were developed because they were motivated by developments in mathematics (cf. for example my earlier posts about antinomy).

Non-classical logics include e.g.:
- Multivalued logic (generic term for all other logics in which the bivalence principle is not valid).
- Modal logic (also: Alethian logic).
- Intuitionistic logic.
- Dialogic logic.
- Temporal logic.
- Deontic logic.
- Conditional propositional logic.
- Doxastic logic.
- Epistemic logic.
- Relevance logic.
- Non-monotonic logic.
- Fuzzy logic.

1505) Great Again, 05.06.2021, 01:04 (8343)

Fuzzy logicians say that most concepts are factually fuzzy in the sense that they can apply to different objects to different degrees. The fuzzy logicians are right. Whether or not a particular term applies to an object is often not a matter of a simple yes or no, but often a matter of degree. In fuzzy logic, one specifies the degree to which a term applies to a particular object by a number from the continuum between 0 and 1: If an object does not fall under a certain term at all, the term in degree 0 applies to it; if it falls completely under it, the term in degree1 applies to it; and if it falls only more or less under it, the term in degree g with 0<g<1 applies to it. For a term one has to specify a function which determines under which circumstances it applies to an object and in which degree. (This function determines a fuzzy set.) For example, one can specify that the predicate „x is a tall man“ applies to men up to 1.60m in degree 0, to men from 1.90m in degree 1, and to men between 1.60m and 1.90m in certain (with height increasing) degrees between 0 and 1; a 1.75m tall man may be tall in degree 0.5, for example.

Since the 1980s, fuzzy logic has increasingly found its way into technical applications under the keyword „fuzzy control“, especially where exact mathematical calculations of the processes to be controlled are complicated, lengthy or hardly possible due to the many and unmanageable influencing variables. In this case, precise measured variables are first translated into fuzzy terms such as „quite fast“, „quite close to the target“, etc. („fuzzification“ is the word for this), which then form the basis for simple rules that are easily accessible to human intuition: „If the car is quite fast and quite close to the target, then brake quite hard“. The „outputs“ of these rules are then transformed back into precise control instructions according to specific procedures. This procedure allows control on an „intuitive“ basis without the availability of an exact mathematical model of the process to be controlled. Fuzzy control has found its way, for example, into the control of video cameras, washing machines, elevators and even subways.

1506) Great Again, 06.06.2021, 00:40 (8344)

Humans are both rational and irrational beings.

This is another reason why philosophy came into being in Ancient Greece.

Humans want to explore and know not only themselves, but also being. They also have a sense or reason for the logical, for the ethical and for the aesthetic, and there, where this sense or reason is not sufficient or not attainable, non-sense or non-reason dominates, and the more so, the less reason is able to react to it in such a way that it does not lose control.

1507) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 07.06.2021, 01:01, 02:03; Great Again, 07.06.2021, 21:37 (8345-8347)

Great Again wrote:

„Unfortunately, all set diagrams, as well as the Venn diagram, are static, i.e. they always assume an actual state. In reality, however, everything is in motion, everything is history.“ ** **

Just the most „evident“ propositions of elementary arithmetic - for example 2 x 2 = 4 - have become, viewed from an analytical point of view, problems whose solution has only been achieved by derivations from set theory and in many details not at all - which would certainly have appeared to Plato and his time as madness and proof of a complete lack of mathematical talent. **

Great Again wrote:

„Mathematics is not free of irrationality. But it seems to be the last discipline which is still able to integrate, to include, to control parts of the irrational. Physics has already given up.

Nevertheless, mathematics has problems. And these problems started at the same time as the problems of physics - with the difference I mentioned above.

With mathematics one can do almost everything - thus also nonsense.“ ** **

And even if only since ca. 1800 the idea of multidimensional spaces - the word would have been better replaced by a new one - became the extended basis of analytic thinking, the first step to it was done at the moment when the powers, actually the logarithms, were detached from their original relation to sensually realizable surfaces and bodies and - using irrational and complex exponents - were introduced into the field of the functional as relation values of a quite general kind. Whoever can follow here at all, will also understand that already with the step from the notion of a^3 as a natural maximum to a^n the unconditionality of a space of three dimensions is cancelled. **

Once the spatial element of the point had lost the still optical character of a coordinate section in a vividly imaginable system and had been defined as a group of three independent numbers, there was no longer any inner obstacle to replace the number 3 by the general n. The concept of dimension is reversed: no longer dimension numbers designate optical properties of a point with respect to its position in a system, but dimensions of unlimited number represent completely abstract properties of a number group. A reversal of the dimension concept occurs: no longer do dimension numbers denote optical properties of a point with respect to its position in a system, but dimensions of unlimited number represent completely abstract properties of a number group. This number group - of n independent ordered elements - is the image of the point; it is called a point. An equation logically developed from it is called a plane, is the image of a plane. The epitome of all points of n dimensions is called a n-dimensional space. (From the point of view of set theory, a well-ordered set of points, without regard to the number of dimensions, is called a body, a set of n-1 dimensions is called a surface in relation to it. The „boundary“ (wall, edge) of a point set represents a point set of lesser power). In these transcendental spatial worlds, which are no longer in any relation to any kind of sensuousness, the relations to be found by the analysis dominate, which are in constant agreement with the results of experimental physics. **

Only in this sphere of number thinking, which is still accessible only to a very small circle of people, even formations like the systems of hypercomplex numbers (for example the quaternions of vector calculus) and at first quite incomprehensible signs like infinite^n get the character of something real. **

In the sharpest contrast to the older mathematics, set theory no longer understands the singular quantities, but the epitome of morphologically somehow similar quantities, for example the totality of all square numbers or all differential equations of a certain type, as a new unit, as a new number of higher order and subjects it to new, formerly completely unknown considerations concerning its power, order, equivalence, countability. The „set“ of rational numbers is countable, that of real numbers is not. The set of the complex numbers is two-dimensional; from this follows the notion of the n-dimensional set, which also classifies the geometric domains into the set theory. One characterizes the finite (countable, limited) sets with respect to their power as „cardinal numbers“, with respect to their order as „ordinal numbers“ and establishes the laws and modes of calculation of them. Thus, a last extension of the function theory, which had gradually incorporated the entire mathematics into its formal language, is in the process of realization, according to which it proceeds with respect to the character of the functions according to principles of the group theory, with respect to the value of the variables according to set-theoretical principles. **

The unnoticed goal towards which all this strives and which every genuine natural scientist in particular feels as an urge within himself, is the working out of a pure, numerical transcendence, the perfect and complete overcoming of the sight and its replacement by a pictorial language incomprehensible and inconceivable to the layman. **

Having reached the goal, the immense, more and more non-sensual (nonsensical), more and more translucent fabric, which spins around the entire science, finally reveals itself: it is nothing else than the inner structure of the word-bound understanding, which believed to overcome the appearance of the eye, to detach „the truth“ from it. **

Great Again wrote:

„The two-valued logic is also not suitable for the treatment of propositions about future events, because it implies a false determinism and leaves no space for the freedom of man.

If A is a proposition about future events, then the statement »A is true« can be more accurately described by the statement »There are (that is: present) causes that force the occurrence of A in the future«, and the statement »A is false« can be more accurately described by the statement »There are causes that force the occurrence of non-A in the future«.

A sentence like »Bill will be home tomorrow« will not usually be true or false in this sense, because there are usually no compelling causes that determine Bill's behavior. Thus, to deal with such cases, one must introduce a third truth value, which can be assigned the property »unknown« or the property »not yet« (cf. the arrows in my diagram [**|**]), which a proposition A about future things takes on precisely when there are no compelling causes for A or not-A to occur.

A roughly similar argument is already found in Aristotle (the famous example of tomorrow's sea battle).“ ** **

Great Again wrote:

„Classical logic includes only propositional logic and predicate logic, in which the principles of forbidden contradiction (principium contradictionis) and excluded third party (principium exclusi tertii) and, related to them, the bivalence principle (see my earlier posts) are valid.

Non-classical logics are those in which at least one of the principles of classical logic is not valid. Particularly important are those systems in which the principle of the excluded third or the bivalence principle is invalid. Such logics were developed because they were motivated by developments in mathematics (cf. for example my earlier posts about antinomy).

Non-classical logics include e.g.:
- Multivalued logic (generic term for all other logics in which the bivalence principle is not valid).
- Modal logic (also: Alethian logic).
- Intuitionistic logic.
- Dialogic logic.
- Temporal logic.
- Deontic logic.
- Conditional propositional logic.
- Doxastic logic.
- Epistemic logic.
- Relevance logic.
- Non-monotonic logic.
- Fuzzy logic.“ ** **

Great Again wrote:

„Fuzzy logicians say that most concepts are factually fuzzy in the sense that they can apply to different objects to different degrees. The fuzzy logicians are right. Whether or not a particular term applies to an object is often not a matter of a simple yes or no, but often a matter of degree. In fuzzy logic, one specifies the degree to which a term applies to a particular object by a number from the continuum between 0 and 1: If an object does not fall under a certain term at all, the term in degree 0 applies to it; if it falls completely under it, the term in degree1 applies to it; and if it falls only more or less under it, the term in degree g with 0<g<1 applies to it. For a term one has to specify a function which determines under which circumstances it applies to an object and in which degree. (This function determines a fuzzy set.) For example, one can specify that the predicate »x is a tall man« applies to men up to 1.60m in degree 0, to men from 1.90m in degree 1, and to men between 1.60m and 1.90m in certain (with height increasing) degrees between 0 and 1; a 1.75m tall man may be tall in degree 0.5, for example.

Since the 1980s, fuzzy logic has increasingly found its way into technical applications under the keyword »fuzzy control«, especially where exact mathematical calculations of the processes to be controlled are complicated, lengthy or hardly possible due to the many and unmanageable influencing variables. In this case, precise measured variables are first translated into fuzzy terms such as »quite fast«, »quite close to the target», etc. (»fuzzification« is the word for this), which then form the basis for simple rules that are easily accessible to human intuition: »If the car is quite fast and quite close to the target, then brake quite hard«. The »outputs« of these rules are then transformed back into precise control instructions according to specific procedures. This procedure allows control on an »intuitive« basis without the availability of an exact mathematical model of the process to be controlled. Fuzzy control has found its way, for example, into the control of video cameras, washing machines, elevators and even subways.“ ** **

video cameras, washing machines, elevators and even subways.[/quote]
Multi-valued logics have been around for a long time, and they all have one thing in common: statements that are either true or false according to the bivalence principle are not valid.

According to Gödel's results, one must presuppose an infinite number of truth values.

Ulrich Blau has given a number of reasons why the logic underlying everyday language is three-valued. I would say it is multi-valued.

If X is rational and irrational, and in addition something that is itself rational or irrational, but without precise assignment, i.e. not yet known, but with high probability assignable in the future, then the possibility can be kept open that this still undetermined will turn out to be something determined in the future. For this purpose, a truth value in terms of the future and a truth value in degrees are given by numbers from the continuum between 0 and 1, where 0 or e.g. 0-0.2 stands for „still undetermined“ or „rational and irrational (because in each case determinable only in the future)“.

1508) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 08.06.2021, 01:00, 01:41; Great Again, 08.06.2021, 02:22 (8348-8350)

I have already read through the book.

A not entirely serious suggestion: We could declare everything irrational to be taboo.

An example from mathematics:

The idea of irrational numbers, in our notation therefore infinite decimal fractions, should remain incomprehensible to the mind, never be told in school about irrational numbers.

Euclid said - and one should have understood him better - that incommensurable distances behaved „not like numbers“. In fact, in the accomplished concept of the irrational number lies the complete separation of the concept of number from the concept of magnitude, and this because such a number - pi, for example - can never be delimited or represented exactly by a distance. But it follows that in the conception of the ratio of the square side to the diagonal, for example, the number as a sensual limit, a closed quantity, suddenly touches a completely different kind of number, which remains foreign in the deepest inside and therefore uncanny, as if one were close to uncovering a dangerous secret of one's own existence. This is revealed by a strange late Greek myth, according to which the one who first brought the contemplation of the irrational out of the hidden to the public, perished by a shipwreck, „because the inexpressible and imageless should always remain hidden“. **

An expression like e^ix, which constantly appears in our formulas, is supposed to seem absurd to us, to be a taboo.

Only calculate with finite fractions, examine the integer ratio of two distances. Great!

Even the idea of a number zero must not even arise, because it has no sense in terms of drawing.

If one would do all that - and only all that -, such a mathematics would be already perfect, only differently perfect.

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„I have already read through the book.“ ** **

Which one do you mean?

1509) Alf, 09.06.2021, 03:57, 04:00, 23:45; Kultur, 09.06.2021, 23:59 (8351-8353)

Kathrina wrote:

„Or a question! A good philosopher should be a good questioner.

One could proceed in such a way that opening posts that do not contain arguments or questions are moved to the non-philosophical chat subforum. In case of repetition, a warning or ban will be issued.“ ** **

I agree, Kathrina.

One can't really do much wrong with a question in an opening post. Well, it has to be appropriate to the forum and the subforum where the thread with the question is to be opened, and it has to be serious, understandable and not offensive.

Would you (**) „invest“ more time in ILP if you were a moderator?

Do you (**) mean that moderators should be a class of their own?

Do you want class warfare?

Are you still a Hungarian communist?

Come on, comrade, have a drink first. ** **

ILP has a lot of members, as I have just read (**).
• Total members: 7281. **
• Total topics: 48312. (Anmerkung: 6,64 Themen pro Mitglied.) **
• Total posts: 1226880. (Anmerkung: 168,50 Beiträge pro Mitglied und 25,39 Beiträge pro Thema.) **

Some brains of those who write there really seem to be full of holes.

But isn't that also a symptom of our current time, of globalism, of the internet, of mass influence on a scale never seen before and simultaneous loneliness, of globalized and more-destructive-than-ever-before drugs, of the technology more-than-ever-before-decayed creatures?

1510) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 10.06.2021, 22:01, 22:22, 23:31 (8355-8357)

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„The best-selling philosophy book of the 20th century.“ ** **

 !

„Hun-g-Aryan“ (**)?

Plato, Sophist, 244 a.

==>