im not sure how i missed this one. an attack is an act of aggresion.
you can disagree with someone without being aggresive. im doing it right now. i disagree, but your prior post and responses to my arguments have been profesional and polite, there for i respect your ideas, i attatch to the a value, and take them in to consderation.
if you were being rude, i would either not respond or try only to attack you back and prove you wrong.
my point is if you continue to act as you have been, i think well get somewhere, or adleast i will. its abou finding the truth.
but if im attacked, my only concern is in defending myself.
ones progresive and one not.

wux, ps
have you ever heard of logistics?
how would you define logistics?

jasonpfaff...I said attack the "issue" and not the person ....an attack is the same as debating the issue...if the issue is not about you in general then why would you take the debate personally ...

oh i understand what you ment, but in my perspective an attack is an attack. Generaly people attatch a value to their ideas (ever argue with a southrn babtist?)
But regaurdless, aggresion is aggresion.
an attack is an act of violence, verbaly or phisicaly. Dont you think its possible to challange without attacking?
Or mabey were just having a communication problem, because iv never got the impression youv attacked me or my ideas, just challenged and questioned them which is perfectly ok.
who knows.

jasonpfaff...isn't a challenge also an act of aggression ...so why is aggreesion now ok because of the words you choose....

and that is why all you should expect from a person is to follow the rules of the forum and not attack someone personally and stay on topic ...to expect anything else makes you the bully

So the question is why am I responding to this?
Even though the OP was a statement, I feel that there is room for improvement in everyone's thought process. Not to appear supperior or belittle anyone's logic, but to open the minds of people to see beyond what they believe to be logical.

a) 1+1 DOES equal 2. (esp. with Jason's clarification) But,....
b) 1+1 DOES equal 3. and,....
c) 1+1 DOES equal 4. and,....
d) 1+1 DOES equal 11.

If you can see the logic of these statements, please respond with the explanation.

to answer your question, no. a challege does not have to be aggresive at all. Is there a difference between assertive and aggresive?
again, theres two ways to do it
call me a bully if you like, but when i discuss, my goal is to achieve somethimg, some knowledge or new perspective. Pleaes explaine to me how you can possibly say im a bully.
You havee a nice philosophical outlook that i respect, but philosphy is only one part of the bigger picture. this is a matter of logic. How can we get the best result out of this discussion? How can we achieve optimum efficency?
problem solving, thats all it is. Well, if you want to get anywhere anyways.

why are you having this discussion with me? Im doing because i think its good to challenge my ideas.

second, its a sad day when you can no longer expect people to think for themselves, and only expect them to do the bare minimum.
sad. I love people at there best, and i expect someone who makes a statment or an argument to be at his best.
if thoses are standards you accept, so be it.
Socrates called people who had those same standards hatters of reason.

conviction.

jasonpfaff...I didn't call you a bully personally..I'm suggesting that for others to come into a debating forum and then start suggesting to others how they should be debating beyond what is being regulated by the forum moderators is trying to bully others into accepting their values of how one should debate

if the forum moderators has already set the standards then can you explain why you have the need to override them ..it suggest control in order to place yourself at an advantage

I don't know where this is headed, but logistics is a system of delivering goods, perhaps with the greatest efficiency and the most frugal way.

Trucking companies use logistics.

The word has got a wider meaning, now it's also used in planning, in preparation, of future communication or arranging meetings; in fact, "logistics" can mean the planning of the shortest route through obstacles for any task or objective.

Nobody has invented yet anything that is LOGICALLY impossible.

Take the Wrights brothers. There was enough knowledge of aerodynamics by then so that people new it was possible to make a flying machine, but it was not possible because they lacked the necessary technology.

Take the idea that the sun revolves around the round earth. Earlier people took it for granted that the earth is flat. Now we know that the Earth is round, but we can also explain that even though it's round, it made perfect sense to people in old times to think it's flat, because the earth is so big compared to an individual man that it seemed flat, and there was no other indication to consider that the earth was not flat.

Take the idea of witches. Witches are not logically false creatures; but only if viewed with the knowledge of a person before the age of enlightenment. In today's world we know that the things that we know about the world and how it works, this knowledge makes the existence of witches impossible, due to being counter-logical. Yet we know that in days of old this modern view would have earned a man a spot on the stakes.

So why do inventions come up? Not because they are impossible by logic, but because the premises of the logic make it impossible. If you change the premis, but don't change the logic, then the outcome of the logic will be different, too.

However, if you are pretty sure your premis is true, and you build on it with logic, you will never get to a conclusion that is impossible. Conversely, if you start with something impossible, and you deductively, through logic, find the premis that made that impossible happen, then you notice that the premis is not a true premis. However, premises change, and if you find something impossible now, because its logical base is a premis that we know is false, but that something still exists, then it may be possible that we don't know enough and we don't have a full grasp of all premises that would allow this impossible thing to happen.

-------

If you have a thing, and you have an other thing, then you have two things == this has nothing to do with logic. Sorry, the scope of this forum is not a place to explain why it's not in the realm of logic. Sorry, please don't ask me to explain why not.

Jason, I re-read my post and see perhaps where you're coming from.

Since the same logic can prove something true and also untrue, depending on the premises that the logic is built on, I see you see this as "logic cannot prove something true", therefore truth can exist despite logic saying it's impossible to be true.

Yet, we have to consider one more thing. There are some premises that are independent of observation. For instance, something cannot both be and not be at the same time and at the same respect. This is a true statement, no matter what. Or I could say, "I'm Wux or I am not Wux" and that would be true, no matter who utters it. (Check out a truth table for (A or B).

So when a logic says something is impossible, and the logic's premise was a necessarily true statement, then the conclusion of the logic is necessarily not true.

I.e. If we know that A is necessarily impossible (for instance, "My name is Wux and not Wux on Mingle2 dot com) then if I come to a conclusion with a valid logic using a necessarily untrue statement, then the conclusion is necessarily untrue as well.

Carry this to the empirical truths, and yes, some logic can be applied to false empirical premises, and still come up with an empirical truth, and that's so because the premise is not as false as we think, maybe it needs to be adjusted.

Science has been using this model, but not the Roman Catholic Church, for instance.

haha now were getting somewhere. but first, you say math has nothing to do with logic? but you refuse to back it up? i just want to make sure. so.. i will ask you. find the sum of one plus one please. how did you do it wuks? if you dont want to discuss it you dont have to.
but that still doent change the fact that logic and math go hand in hand. Prove me wrong and i will concede.
fyi, axioms are not used in modern math.

ok, so you think its impossible for something to exist and not exist at the same time?

Have you ever heard of quantum physics? Heisenberg uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics....

again, when you attempt to define something and call it absolute, you place rigid parameters around yourself, you trap your self.


logic is not absolute. something can be illogical and still be true
(unless your ready to rewrite quantum physics)

in 300 AD the thought of a phone was illogical.

perception and observation are crucial to logic. as soon as you observe something you influence the physical process taking place.
Chaos theory in other words. Variables variables variables. Everything wux, everything has variables.

anyways, logic can not exist in our reality (i hesitate to use that word exist) with out perception and observation.

according to superstring theory, there ar 10 + 1 dimensions, each with its own set of rules. so...can you exist and not exsist? yes, according to quantum you can.
can something be illogicl and true? yes, quantum physics is.

wux, i appritiate your side, i really do. but quantum physics clearly opposes logic as we know it, its definatly not impossible.

hmmmmm. try this. give me the cosign of 487. then show me the logic in your calculations. don't forget to back up your conclusion now.

im not sure where your gettin at here, so unless youdlike to be more specific ill cut to the chase. math is not perfect. look ate pie IE.
realize that im not saying there the same thing, but they corilate and they are relative.
inference for example, is a basic formula is it not? soemthing is valid or its not.
something can be logical and not mathmatical. something can be mathmatical and not logical.

the difference is logic is influenced by perception.i can mold logic into my arguement, so can you.
logic is used in math.
logic is the study of reasoning. reasoning is a thought process or a typ of thought. math is a process we use to study quantities, structure, change, and space. do you think when you do math? so math is a form of reasoning.
can you not see that they corellate?
im open minded enough to hear anyone out, but realize your arguing with science here. Thats not to say thats wrong, we didnt get where we are today by conventional means.

1.I don't think that what you say. But if you add to that, "and at the same respect", then I think that.

2. I never said what you say I said. I said, "arythmetic has nothing to do with logic."

-------

A. Jason, you show over and over that you seem to be unable to read what I write. If it's going to be a discussion in which you put words in my mouth which I constantly have to correct, then forget it.

B. If you think I'm bullying you, you're wrong. But I see that intelligent discourse is impossible here.

C. Let'g go windsurfing or rollercoaster-riding one day. Just because we have different ways of looking at the world, we can still be friends. Provided we never meddle in each other's way of looking at the world. That meddling would lead only to futile and irritating discussions, like the one we've just had now.

hang on a sec. No offence was ment, im sorry you got the impression i thought you were a bully, that was a delivery problem on my part. no offence ment and none taken either.

with that said,

A. "Arythmetic is a combination of axioms and conventions. It has nothing to do with logic." wux you said that. you didnt say math, but math, any math can only go 4 directions. (add subtraxt multiply or divide) the rest is either a combo of those or symbols that represent something. (ie sigma represents summation which is addition)
mabey i took that alitle out of contex, if thats the case i appologize.

B. i dont think your bullying me. i did not like how you said arythmatic has nothing to do with logic, and that it wont be discussed why. i imajine you can see why i didnt like that statement.

C. your right, we can get along just fine. if we cant have an inteligant conversation or discorse, its not because of me. where have i been illogical?(ha ha, let me rephrase) where have i been invalid or refused to be openmindend? iv backed everything i say up with something.
i introduced superstring theory which in many different ways proves that a thing can exsist and not exsist at the same time. i have shown that quantum physics is illogical, and still exists. (it has to do with having different rules in this dimension than the other 9 + 1 dimentions)

but your saying we cant have intelligent discorse? i dont get it.
Wux, let me be clear, if you show me that my reason is flawed, i will amend or concede. i have several other times on this forum with several people. if im wrong, and you prove me wrong, i will admit it and thank you for correcting me.
i dont have to be right. thats not my intention. i want to find the truth.
so, if you make a statment like arythmatic has nothing to do with logic, i expect you to back it up. other wise why are you here? to be right? the burdon of proof is on you wux. i have not seen one piece of eveidence from you, all you have said is its not possible.

wux, im not comin at you. iv read some of your stuff, i like your out look, an i would like your perspective on this. if im wrong, tell me, and tell me why. if i prove you wrong, dont say intelligent discourse isnt possible, learn from it. i will do the same, you have my word.

please dont be offended, see it as a challange.
if im wrong, please inform me why so i can stop being wrong.

I haven't been following the discussion, but would like to chime in here and declare:

Arithmetic is but a tiny slice of 'all that is mathematics'.

It just so happens that they teach arithmetic throughout elementary school, and call it 'math'.

Topology and combinatorics are just two entire fields of mathematics that can be explored without involving any arithmetic at all.

It really bugs me when people equate arithmetic and mathematics. I knew an self described 'anti-math' philosophy student (who actually disliked arithmetic) who finally discovered real math in a higher level philosophy class. He had a lot of difficulty accepting that what he was studying was actually math.

Wait, theirs not arithmetic at all in topology or combinatorics?

combinatorics borrows may different formulas from other sciences including probability(there is most definitely arithmetic in physics) Integer partitions (studied by partition theory) calculus as well as arithmatic.
I know notations for intervals are used in topology, and there is basic arithmetic involved in that process.

thats not to say they cant work without arithmatic, but only taken in a certain context can they work without arithmatic. to draw a conclusion from that certain context that topology or combinatorics have nothing to with arithamtic is questionable to me.

As far as arithmetic being a tiny scale, that I respectfully disagree with. All math one way or the other comes down to reduction.
It’s a crucial and necessary aspect of any science.

happy thanksgiving everyone!

________ JUST AN OPINION __________
* * * (Not meant for invoking any argument, just something to consider -- so NO RESPONSE NECESSARY!!!)

IF ONE CANNOT STAMD THE HEAT, ONE SHOULD GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!!
(... Rather than turning everybody's attention to the one's twisted & illogical point of view!)* * *

Frankly, jasonpfaff, this is an Adult Network, and we can do without your constant adolescent bickering over being attacked, and HOW WE SHOULD CARRY OUT OUR ARGUMENTS... Your behavior is annoying in the least, and abusive in the most (which is a kind of an attack in itself). That constitutes the grounds for being expelled from the site...

You seem to have a beef with everybody... I suggest you take it up with the moderators -- see what they woud say???

Otherwise, you leave us no choice but filing a complaint against you! (unless you adopt an adult attitude towards carrying out the conversation without the complaints!!! ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

P.S. NO RESPONSE EXPECTED, thank you -- just consider a friendly adult advise...