Undistributed middle, iirc, but this comment proves my point. The poster believes this is a "gotcha" question, because he knows philosophy, but not science. Logic is math, not philosophy. Philosophy may try to use logic, but every single piece of logic has a formal mathematical definition that exists independent of philosophy, and all ideas can be derived via logical equations. Philosophy majors think they're smart, but if they were, they would be studying logic in the math department, not smelling each others farts in the philosophy department.
Math and logic are both conceptions. They don't exist without a mind to conceive them. Even in the simplest form they are abstractions, based on arbitrary classification and grouping.
Also Tarski & Godel would disagree that all ideas can be derived using logical equations.
Wrong; the universe follows rules much like a computer, and is exactly equivalent to math. In fact, math has been able to predict many phenomenon before they were even observed, such as the existence of the positron.
Regarding Godel, that's not what the incompleteness theorem says. Yes, within a system, there are statements that can be proven true or false if it is consistent. However, that does not mean that a complete description of a system is not possible. A system can be perfectly described if it is embedded in a higher order system, that hides its incompleteness/inconsistencies outside of the subsystem in question.
the universe follows rules much like a computer, and is exactly equivalent to math.
This is a grand assumption. We have yet to find a generalized solution to a simple abstractions like three-body Newtonian celestial mechanics. Predictions are great, we've done amazing things with them. Saying these hold in ALL times, places, and conditions without knowing all times, all places, and all conditions is a huge (and unverifiable) flex.
A system can be perfectly described if it is embedded in a higher order system, that hides its incompleteness/inconsistencies outside of the subsystem in question.
There's plenty such as arguing objective morals and duties. I'm not ready for the argument and know it'd be waste to try with you anyways so I wrote the above. If you think science can explain why murder, rape, assault, and theft are always objectively wrong then go ahead and think that.
They aren't objectively wrong. That's the point, your opinion is they are objectively wrong. And by the way, there are philosophies and philosophers that would disagree that there are objectively wrong. That's why philosophy is for blowhard idiots; they can't seem to wrap their head around that fact that they are talking about opinions, not objective truth.
Hercules was a man. I'm a man. Therefore I'm Hercules.
What logical fallacy was that?
Undistributed middle, iirc, but this comment proves my point. The poster believes this is a "gotcha" question, because he knows philosophy, but not science. Logic is math, not philosophy. Philosophy may try to use logic, but every single piece of logic has a formal mathematical definition that exists independent of philosophy, and all ideas can be derived via logical equations. Philosophy majors think they're smart, but if they were, they would be studying logic in the math department, not smelling each others farts in the philosophy department.
Math and logic are both conceptions. They don't exist without a mind to conceive them. Even in the simplest form they are abstractions, based on arbitrary classification and grouping. Also Tarski & Godel would disagree that all ideas can be derived using logical equations.
Wrong; the universe follows rules much like a computer, and is exactly equivalent to math. In fact, math has been able to predict many phenomenon before they were even observed, such as the existence of the positron.
Regarding Godel, that's not what the incompleteness theorem says. Yes, within a system, there are statements that can be proven true or false if it is consistent. However, that does not mean that a complete description of a system is not possible. A system can be perfectly described if it is embedded in a higher order system, that hides its incompleteness/inconsistencies outside of the subsystem in question.
This is a grand assumption. We have yet to find a generalized solution to a simple abstractions like three-body Newtonian celestial mechanics. Predictions are great, we've done amazing things with them. Saying these hold in ALL times, places, and conditions without knowing all times, all places, and all conditions is a huge (and unverifiable) flex.
So it's is turtles all the way down, then?
There's plenty such as arguing objective morals and duties. I'm not ready for the argument and know it'd be waste to try with you anyways so I wrote the above. If you think science can explain why murder, rape, assault, and theft are always objectively wrong then go ahead and think that.
They aren't objectively wrong. That's the point, your opinion is they are objectively wrong. And by the way, there are philosophies and philosophers that would disagree that there are objectively wrong. That's why philosophy is for blowhard idiots; they can't seem to wrap their head around that fact that they are talking about opinions, not objective truth.