Ontology 2 - No such thing as logical precedence

[Heissenburger]

in e.g. (GET MONEY ==> KISS MY S), it's just a linguistic

convention to call "GET MONEY" the precedent, and to call

"KISS MY S" the conclusion / consequence. not that linguistic

precedence does not exist, but it exists just as a label in

the context of a statement in a particular form. however e.g.

we can change the form to its contrapositive form.

[rozeboosje]

@Heissenburger Sorry. Please come again and remember this is a 2 year old video. What, specifically, do I say in this video that you are referring to?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

This is a rare thing - an absolutely unqualified decisive argument against a position or line of reasoning. Scratch "logical precedence" from ever being successfully used in any argument. Well done.

[paperduck20]

Logical precedence: A is logically prior to B if the definition of B mentions A, but the definition of A doesn't mention B. What do you mean logical precedence "doesn't exist" because it's no different than not(B) OR A?

[rozeboosje]

The logical statement "A implies B" is equivalent to the logical statement "Not(A) OR B". In the former statement a person would intuitively see "A" as "preceding" "B", as if "A" would have to be in place in order for "B" to follow. The OR statement is commutative, it's the same as "B OR Not(A)", and neither statement precedes the other.

[paperduck20]

I understand what you're saying on paper, but what about in reality. e.g. writing this comment precedes you reading it - I can, as you put it, either not write it OR you read it. You may not read it even though I wrote it, but you'd never read it if I didn't write it. My writing precedes your reading.

[rozeboosje]

Yes, but that's temporal precedence, not "logical" precedence.

BTW - science still isn't clear about how the "arrow of time" would work in reality. Most laws of physics we have come up with are essentially time-independent; they work the same way normally as "back to front", although recent theories appear to be breaking that symmetry.

[DieselBodine]

Listening to this debate for proof of the existence, or non-existence, of god.

[rozeboosje]

Not quite. It's the debate for proof of the existence v. a rejection of the proof. Rejecting the proof does not mean one must then deny the conclusion. Just that the conclusion can no longer be presented as fact.

[papackar]

That just means that every "or" statement is equivalent to a statement of "logical precedence".

Arguments relying on such a thing (logical precedence), are simply arguments which require that at least one of two alternatives be true.

[rozeboosje]

No. Every "or" statement is equivalent to a statement of "implication".

"logical precedence" is a term that Mo, or whoever he got his ideas from, invented in order to muddy the waters so he could sneak his God in through the back door. Well. That is the cynical explanation. It is also possible that he wasn't aware that this was what he was really doing. That is the kinder one.

[papackar]

I was assuming that a statement of "logical precedence" is the same thing as a statement of "implication".

This may not be very relevant. It's just an observation: Because "or" statements are symmetrical, every "or" statement is equivalent to two statements of implication:

A or B

notB -> A

notA -> B

When it comes to reality, ontology and theology, the premises that I think are groundless and nonsensical are those in which "nothing", "something" and/or "someone" are related by implication.

[rozeboosje]

Yes indeed, they are symmetrical and yes, an OR statement is equivalent to TWO implications, which two the layman's eye would look like "reverses" of each other, where one "condition" appears to "precede" the other "conclusion". Another good way to illustrate why it's not valid to talk about "logical precedence".

[nevinwilliams]

"Exclusive Or" statements do not generally describe reality accurately, but our limbic system prefers using them to make quick decisions and exclusions. This lower-mammalian system manages our perception under emotional conditions, arguing being one of them. ;)

[TheKidFrom13thStreet]

I understand your premise, but honestly the explanation went over my head. My fault, definitely not yours...lol.

[rozeboosje]

:-) Thanks

[paperduck20]

translation = I have blind faith?

[rozeboosje]

ha! Clever retort, but no. I would hope that the correct translation would be "but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt".

[robshred66]

Do you like Derrida?

[rozeboosje]

I don't know. I'm not great on philosophical history.

[robshred66]

He founded a critical movement in post-structuralism he called Deconstruction, which essentially removed the notion of the signifier and signified--there is no central term. I guess this is applied more in the realm of linguistics and literature.

[rozeboosje]

Aha. I had heard the name alright but I didn't know him otherwise.

[ogbash]

wasn't it the other way around? not A or B

I think to understand this (and previous) you have to be a little bit into mathematics and it usually takes longer than 3-5 minute video. So, I do not think you reach him with these "unimportant" arguments.

[rozeboosje]

Correct. My bad.

[AbrahamtheAtheist]

Very interesting. You have an excellent grasp of logic.

[rozeboosje]

Thank you. Even though, of course, I got the example exactly the wrong way around - see the Erratum in the video description. But it doesn't matter to the point I was making.