4:08 "once we have the place holders we can know by definition, that x is x, not that x is a&b ... WE CAN KNOW THIS BECAUSE THE WORLD IN WHICH WE LIVE BEHAVES UNIFORMLY" - Ok, to nit pick, long time since i watched this, it is great, on my 3rd re-run today, But, the first part of this sentence is the correct part, we know this because WE AGREED BY DEFINITION to have it as such in such circumstances. In logic we proceed from defs and axioms to show the necessity of a conclusion - cont:
I do points - culminations. I need closure, perhaps its a personal flaw... However, I'm recognizing a theme. It seems that logic can't be used to prove God's existence. Am I correct? (Moving from this to your argument for God, and not the lovely Mahler piece.)
@Buruc A rock is an abstraction too and are not independent of minds either. 'Rock' is the label with give compositions of matter which we percieve exhibiting certain emergent behaviours. Rocks obey the laws of logic because they are a product of our minds interacting with matter as well. It is hardly surprising in this context that the two concepts mesh. I have not said that logic is independent of minds. I said I believe there exists matter and matter has certain governing behaviours.
@Buruc I really don't think I do. Logic is not independent of minds. Let us try an analogy. Is there such a thing as the language French without anyone who speaks it, thinks in it, has writing in it. If nowhere in the universe is a single word, or representation of a word in French, is there such a thing as French? But where does French come from? It is the interaction of material minds with matter, it is an emergent property of matter.
@Buruc No, our minds our minds form our perception of nature, not nature itself. Nature just is, but our perception of it is something formed out of the matter of our mind. You are now equivocating a whole bunch of things I considered different. Laws of Logic vs. Underlying governing laws of nature. Nature and our perception of it. The naturalistic origin of the encoding of the laws of logic in our minds (evolution) and the reason the laws of logic are what they are and not something else.
@Buruc No I said in the absences of minds there are no laws of logic because they are products of material minds interacting with matter. Matter and so on do not obey the laws of logic (or the laws of physics for that matter), these things are emergent properties of matter forming minds. Matter behaves how matter behaves and one property of how it behaves is that when material minds form they can encode the laws of logic.
@Buruc The laws of logic are encodings in minds of how the world works. If there were no minds, but there was matter, then matter would behave the way it does now. However, there would be no laws of logic without minds because to have a language you first require a mind. Just as you can have the matter that makes up tables without a mind, but you cant have an abstract table without a mind.
@Buruc You couldn't say that the world did not exist because there would be no mind with which to say it. In a universe with no matter how would you conceive of existing? There would be no matter from which one could form the concept of not existing. I'm not entirely sure why the 'non-physical' nature of the laws of logic is perplexing. I cant go and touch an abstract table either but I'm not asked to account for the existence of abstract tables.
@Buruc That would be correct in although I want to emphasize that I believe matter will behave the way it does regardless of if there are minds around to observe it. If there are no things, there are no things that are themselves and not something else. I'm a materialist so saying that there is no matter is the same as saying nothing exists (I mean matter in the ontological sense, not the sense a physicist would use the term).
@Buruc I'm not sure why you phrase it as 'on the atheist world view', reminds me of that advert with the eggs and the guy saying 'this is your brain on drugs'. I would say there is no more reality to logical absolutes than the explanation I have offered already. At a more fundamental level they are emergent properties of matter, in particular the interaction of the material human mind with the world.
@Buruc As for accounting for why we have logical absolutes I would say that logical absolutes are emergent properties of the language we use to describe the world. A is A is a defining property of the word 'is'. Further once we have a definition for A we can see if it matches our more basic conception by asking if all things do indeed obey the requirement A is A, and we observe that they do. Unless you are really asking 'why is there anything at all'?
@Buruc Atheism is an ontological claim, agnosticism is an epistemological one. I don't think anyone sensible will mind if you use as an operating definition atheism = 'there is no god' but agnosticism = ''I don't believe in god' is going to turn some heads. Your best bet is to refer to scientific naturalism which is the world view many atheists subscribe to and the one most people critique when they are talking about 'things on the atheist world view' (which also just sounds odd).
that ending sentence was epic, it was like a started/end to a movie. and god is logically impossible. if you are talking about the christian god described in the bible. we cannot exist without god, when actually, god could not exist without us. AND THATS A FACT.
Mmmmmmmmm, I'm going to have to disagree that logic is a language or symbolic. I think that substantially diminishes the reliability of logic.
Of course the symbols USED in in propositional or predicate logic is a symbol but I definitely don't think that the symbolism is equivalent to the system. "Language is the army of metaphors". If logic is just a language then it is a symbol for... what?
I'm not sure if logic is just intuitive, or if it is by definition, but it is NOT metaphorical.
' If logic is just a language then it is a symbol for... what?'
A language isn't a symbol. Symbols are a part of language.
'I'm going to have to disagree that logic is a language or symbolic. I think that substantially diminishes the reliability of logic.'
Do you think that calling maths a language diminishes its reliability? How about c++? Are computer programming languages unreliable? How is this unreliability expressed? How is it detected?
"A language isn't a symbol. Symbols are a part of language."
That couldn't be further from the truth. You need to look up some work on modern linguistics. (actually that was settled over 50 years ago but everything is based off of that)
You computer language example just shows how much you don't understand. C++ translates to binary, which translates to on/off (in primitive computers it was done with pipes and valves). Language is always a symbol for something external.
@insidetrip101 OK, I will be willing to accept that 'language is a symbol' if you can provide a reference for me to research, although it would probably require a redefinition of the word 'symbol' as I currently use it.
'You computer language example just shows how much you don't understand. ... Language is always a symbol for something external.'
You misunderstand. I was trying to explore what you meant by 'unreliable' and asking how it related to languages like maths and C++.
"if you can provide a reference for me to research"
Lookup Ferdinand Saussure. He never actually wrote a book, instead he just published his lecture notes that includes diagrams to explain the issue.
C++ and other programming languages aren't "reliable" in the sense that they aren't logical. They are logical, but they are logical because they symbolize logic. If logic is just another symbol, just another language, then what does logic symbolize?
"but the rules that are applied is what the logic is."
'If logic is just another symbol, just another language, then what does logic symbolize?'
I would say that the rules express the relationships between the things represented by the the symbols.
Logic represents our best guess at the rules of reality but the laws of logic would have to change if we found, for example, that something could be both A and ¬A at the same time. (See Quantum Logic for examples like this...)
@insidetrip101 However, I am clearly not as well read on the subject as yourself so I may well be talking through my hat.
I am interested in how:
p || !p
is symbolising logic whereas:
P v -p
IS logic.
It seems to me that one is applied to representations of values in computer memory while the other is applied to real world objects and concepts. They are both abstractions.
I think you are misunderstanding me. Both are symbolizing, that is my point. I think what DAA is saying is that P v -p is logic.
"Logic is a language, and like any language, logic describes things...." at :51
If we understand P v -p (and other symbols commonly used in predicate and propositional logic) then we have, in a sense, made the same mistake as the logical positivists. If that was really the problem, I think you were on the right track anyways. =)
@insidetrip101 Also, I don't dispute that computer languages provide symbolic layers of abstraction of physical properties (the flow of electrons through semiconductors in this case).
I just currently think of a language as a set of symbols (and rules, etc.), rather than as a single symbol.
I suppose you could say that C++ symbolises assembly language, but in my mind that phrase implies many symbols.
Been thinking and I didn't really answer your question fully. You are right in the sense that language is a set of symbols, but I would say the rules are what makes the language "logical". The symbols that make up propositional and predicate logic, but the rules that are applied is what the logic is. The basic symbols try to express it most fully, but they are still symbols and not logic itself. "The symbol is always arbitrary." If logic is a symbol then it is also arbitrary. =S
soooo... when are you going to do your marxism follow-up video? i checked through the comments section of your previous two vids and there wasn't much of any response to any of the questions people asked you. now, it just kinda seems like you're stalling. certainly, you could have come up with a video by now if marxism was all that great.
@CrucifyMy5elf How about it James? You can sleep with a black guy and a blonde chick at the same time. That has to satisfy like 4 or more fantasies at once.
@MauricXe Oh my god you're such a geek. But I'm pretty sure James is the type that's up for anything so we don't even need to ask him. He'll just jump right in if the opportunity arises.
I suppose I'll play devil's advocate on the last point and say that since god claims to be a living tautology (I am that I am) then god accounts (is) the equals sign in 2 + 2 = 4. Therefore if god did not exist, there would be no equivalnce relation between the three symbols 2,2,4.
@threeofwands That argument falls to pieces when one realises that god of the major religions (at least, as far as I'm aware) is omnipotent, omnipresent, &c., all of which entail contradictions. The argument about 'could god create a rock so heavy he couldn't move it' is just a realisation of the paradox resultant from the assumption that god is omnipotent and consistent. One cannot be powerful over everythin, because this would mean that one is powerful over both things and not-things. A ≠ ¬A
@Ibuiltatower Right, I wouldn't use the medieval omni-god in this respect. On the 2+2 example, my foil would be the Parmenidean god (which is the god of the western logos). This god is simply the unity of what exists (=), or is.
@threeofwands Even still, that doesn't solve the problem, as, the requirement that god exist isn't there. For example, if the entirety of existence is in the concept of god, then saying that A is a subset of G (G=God) isn't helpful. You can just as easily simply say that A=A, or that A is a subset of 1. The assigning of G=1 is an assumption which simply isn't required in the reasoning. While A subset (1 = G) can be true, A subset 1 is simpler, and therefore still the better.
@Ibuiltatower Well, I'm not sure. If we were to argue along those lines and I had the job of arguing for an ultimate or most comprehensive set, I would make sure we were using the same set theory and that someone else was buying the whiskey.
On the other hand, I think using a classical example like 2+2 does lend itself to a kind of Parmendian god as metaphysics. Once could then use a phenomenological/deconstructionist theory to account for empirical differences, or not.
@threeofwands Of course, when one deals in set theory one must always be aware that no matter how logical, strange paradoxes can just jump out of nowhere and start tearing into your argument.
Even so, the thing is, even when dealing with something even simple like 2+2, the moment you make a god with which it can be consistent, the god becomes needless for the proof. It can be added, but it becomes a null element. Maths wouldn't work if it didn't.
@Ibuiltatower But 2+2 isn't the god, right? (actually i'm tired of the term god. Lets use "Goofage").
Goofage is the equals sign (=). In short, Goofage is the unity that holds reality together. Without Goofage there are only signs that are recognizable as such only in regards to how they differ from each other.
But in fact, without Goofage even difference would be unintelligible. For how could one understand that something is different without a prior sharing of a common Goofage?
@threeofwands Even still, Goofage isn't needed. Nor is Goofage specifically valid. It doesn't matter what you call the bijection, whether you call it god, Goofage, or an equals sign, its label isn't what characterises it. It's characterised SOLELY by its operational relationship in the same way '+' and 'banana' are. To borrow another example, in chess you can call it a knight, a paard, or a Springer; that doesn't change what it is. Nor does it inherit any new qualities from its label.
But 2+2 does not equal 4 in a field of characteristic 3 ...
Good response. This is one of the most frustrating topics when I try to refute Christians. It is so hard to articulate where the fallacy is when they argue this point in a convoluted yet elegant way. I always want to respond, "But you're just saying things. Until you make an actual argument, there is nothing for me to say."
In his attempts to prove the proposition "God exists," Other4815 always relies on the following structure (albeit informally stated):
P1: God is the (only) source of X.
C1: X cannot exist without God.
P2: X exists.
C2: God exists... and He is the Christian God, and the Bible is His inspired, inerrant holy word, and He wants you to not be gay or to have pre-marital sex, and He will send you to Hell if you don't believe in Him.
What if I say that "2+2" is a nonsensical starting point? Kind of like asking "does your mom know you're gay?" or something like that. It makes the assumption that there's such a thing as exactly 2 when there isn't.
What do you mean X is not A and B at the same time? If X= human, A= man, and B= white, WHY couldn't X a human being be both man and white at the same time. Of course X cannot equal non-X.
"Show me how god not existing would make Socrates not mortal." I believe that should become a quotable quote. Or at least the battle cry against the logic-less (rather than illogical) Xians. Interesting vid, comme d'habitude.
Well done! I just saw that other whatever number video about "logic" yesterday and figured I'd leave it for the more philosophically inclined, so I'm glad you tackled it. I'll save ammo for another video of his.
There are some videos here on youtube on the subject that can give a glimpse of what it can be used for and is used for and also some of the philosophical consequences of it.
I gotta ask.. What do you mean by the 'atheist world view'? Atheism is just the name for the "I don't believe in God/gods" crowd. There's no common world view, that we all have to share. We don't have atheist priests tell us which minority to like or dislike, who to vote for etc. ;)
Atheism doesn't tell you anything about a person's stance on politics, racism, homosexuality, evolution or whatever. It's simply a 'No' to the "Do you believe in God?" question. That's it. :)
Don't know if this what the person you're responding to was driving at, but I think there's something mystical about the fact that logical systems are always incomplete. To me, it implies that description and analysis is fundamentally a 'part' of reality, and so cannot encapsulate the 'whole' of it.
What always amazes me is the people who actually need this explained (although your elucidation was exquisite), people who say: "logic doesn't always work." or "you can't calculate everything" or even worse "sometimes you can't use reason to solve problems".
Super vid, i would have mentioned that numbers have an ordinal property, which leads to bigger infinities than the regular infinity - the aleph sys. counting of infinities divised by Cantor. ;o)
@Hythloday71 That's a very good point. I plan to eventually make a video discussing infinity...and then a video discussing nothing...but not a video ABOUT nothing--well, actually I suppose it *is* about nothing...hmmm...I'm sure you get what I mean.
@DasAmericanAtheist - LOL - I can tell u what would be good vid to do, with current reading and your video prompting much thought. - Does Math / Logic exist separate to man or nature, is 'mathematics unreasonably effective?' - I have my own ideas, but i'd be interested in yours !
Wait a minute, isn't the simple fact that quantum physics doesn't behave under the laws of logic, in fact, proof that logic is a product of human observation of the world, and not in fact a product of god. Because if logic comes from god, then quantum physics would follow these logical laws he created. This is actually very important, because that acts as proof that logic is something that we created to discuss the macro universe, and not in fact, gods universal laws.
@MasterDebator809 Absolutely--when I said "the world we live in" what I really had in mind was the "middle" world--but I didn't want to add another point that needed to be clarified.
Pet peeve: Can people please read up on Schrödinger's cat. It was a thought experiment that was ment as a critique to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
other4815's mind may seem to be closed tighter than a bear trap but then again I, at a point in the past, would have said many of the things he has. I am now an atheist and much happier. There is hope for him still. Thanks for framing this response to him in a civil manner.
He states in the video that the answer must be void of logic as to avoid circularity. So, if "Logic comes from God" is truly the answer then that statement must therefore be void of logic, too. Oops. Not sure he meant for that to happen.
I have to ask the same question every time I hear a theist bring up logic:
Which logic are you talking about? Because there's lots of different kinds: classical, fuzzy, paraconsistent, intuitionist... and they don't all agree on... well, pretty much anything. So which of these divergent logics does their God hold true in His mind? And what does he have against the other logics? And why do they all still work so damn well?
@EvoGenVideos IC light (Iron City, that is)--made here in Pittsburgh. Unfortunately the company is bankrupt and is "bleeding out"...then I'll have to drink something mainstream like coors...yuk! I wonder how Sam Adams light is?
I think other4815's answer will go something like this, "Oh yeah, so's your mother! Ha! I win", then he and blockofsod will meet on Blog Talk Radio and laugh and laugh and laugh!
dude, awesome video, but for a theist as dumb as other, you might not wanna get too detailed xD he'll have to go pray that he understands what you are talking about
@GreatEighthSin no no no that's 2&2 however 2+2 doesn't necessarily equal 4 2 groups of 2 MAY equate to 4 but they are still just 2 groups of 2 or even 2 pairs after all 2 apples and 2 oranges doesn't make 4 appanges just 4 fruit also 2 men and 2 women make 4 people thus the goddess of sex exists kneel before her and suck her toes before you are damned to flaccidity may you see the one true way and experience much ecstasy ;p
I can hear the Xtian responses already.. "I may not know much about logic, but I know what I think"
skoockum 2 months ago
4:08 "once we have the place holders we can know by definition, that x is x, not that x is a&b ... WE CAN KNOW THIS BECAUSE THE WORLD IN WHICH WE LIVE BEHAVES UNIFORMLY" - Ok, to nit pick, long time since i watched this, it is great, on my 3rd re-run today, But, the first part of this sentence is the correct part, we know this because WE AGREED BY DEFINITION to have it as such in such circumstances. In logic we proceed from defs and axioms to show the necessity of a conclusion - cont:
Hythloday71 3 months ago
@Hythloday71 - nothing to do with regularities or uniformity in the world ! !! !!!
I do wish you would do some more on this stuff though ;o)
Particularly Math, logic, and philosophy vs science !
Hythloday71 3 months ago
Comment removed
nymphrenic 1 year ago
I do points - culminations. I need closure, perhaps its a personal flaw... However, I'm recognizing a theme. It seems that logic can't be used to prove God's existence. Am I correct? (Moving from this to your argument for God, and not the lovely Mahler piece.)
kdheithaus 1 year ago
...
*watches this video nomming an apple*
BI
NikiPaprika 1 year ago
SEE Theoretical bullshits refutation of the Transendental Arguement for the existence of God, the Mat/Mat debate 1-5 or the "slick logic" video.
Waaaaay better articulation than this as to what the flaws are in the reasoning that laws of logic somehow require the existence of god.
Much as i like Dasamericanatheist.
Roenazarrek 1 year ago
Question: If logic ever fails? Then would the logical thing to do be to stop using logic...wtf?
clockworkornge 1 year ago
@Buruc A rock is an abstraction too and are not independent of minds either. 'Rock' is the label with give compositions of matter which we percieve exhibiting certain emergent behaviours. Rocks obey the laws of logic because they are a product of our minds interacting with matter as well. It is hardly surprising in this context that the two concepts mesh. I have not said that logic is independent of minds. I said I believe there exists matter and matter has certain governing behaviours.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@nanoduckling Correction: label which /we/ give
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc I really don't think I do. Logic is not independent of minds. Let us try an analogy. Is there such a thing as the language French without anyone who speaks it, thinks in it, has writing in it. If nowhere in the universe is a single word, or representation of a word in French, is there such a thing as French? But where does French come from? It is the interaction of material minds with matter, it is an emergent property of matter.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc No, our minds our minds form our perception of nature, not nature itself. Nature just is, but our perception of it is something formed out of the matter of our mind. You are now equivocating a whole bunch of things I considered different. Laws of Logic vs. Underlying governing laws of nature. Nature and our perception of it. The naturalistic origin of the encoding of the laws of logic in our minds (evolution) and the reason the laws of logic are what they are and not something else.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc No I said in the absences of minds there are no laws of logic because they are products of material minds interacting with matter. Matter and so on do not obey the laws of logic (or the laws of physics for that matter), these things are emergent properties of matter forming minds. Matter behaves how matter behaves and one property of how it behaves is that when material minds form they can encode the laws of logic.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc The laws of logic are encodings in minds of how the world works. If there were no minds, but there was matter, then matter would behave the way it does now. However, there would be no laws of logic without minds because to have a language you first require a mind. Just as you can have the matter that makes up tables without a mind, but you cant have an abstract table without a mind.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc You couldn't say that the world did not exist because there would be no mind with which to say it. In a universe with no matter how would you conceive of existing? There would be no matter from which one could form the concept of not existing. I'm not entirely sure why the 'non-physical' nature of the laws of logic is perplexing. I cant go and touch an abstract table either but I'm not asked to account for the existence of abstract tables.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc That would be correct in although I want to emphasize that I believe matter will behave the way it does regardless of if there are minds around to observe it. If there are no things, there are no things that are themselves and not something else. I'm a materialist so saying that there is no matter is the same as saying nothing exists (I mean matter in the ontological sense, not the sense a physicist would use the term).
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc I'm not sure why you phrase it as 'on the atheist world view', reminds me of that advert with the eggs and the guy saying 'this is your brain on drugs'. I would say there is no more reality to logical absolutes than the explanation I have offered already. At a more fundamental level they are emergent properties of matter, in particular the interaction of the material human mind with the world.
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc As for accounting for why we have logical absolutes I would say that logical absolutes are emergent properties of the language we use to describe the world. A is A is a defining property of the word 'is'. Further once we have a definition for A we can see if it matches our more basic conception by asking if all things do indeed obey the requirement A is A, and we observe that they do. Unless you are really asking 'why is there anything at all'?
nanoduckling 1 year ago
@Buruc Atheism is an ontological claim, agnosticism is an epistemological one. I don't think anyone sensible will mind if you use as an operating definition atheism = 'there is no god' but agnosticism = ''I don't believe in god' is going to turn some heads. Your best bet is to refer to scientific naturalism which is the world view many atheists subscribe to and the one most people critique when they are talking about 'things on the atheist world view' (which also just sounds odd).
nanoduckling 1 year ago
hugo!
MrJturner 1 year ago
He removed the video you were responding to. What a douche!
JohnWoo 1 year ago
This beer is not a cat! Logic IS logical.
dearyou1994 1 year ago
that ending sentence was epic, it was like a started/end to a movie. and god is logically impossible. if you are talking about the christian god described in the bible. we cannot exist without god, when actually, god could not exist without us. AND THATS A FACT.
kiddhitta 1 year ago
I went to Other's vid, and you must have convinced him of something Das: "This video has been removed by the user."
InLucidReverie 1 year ago
Nice pussy.
transferosome 1 year ago
Mmmmmmmmm, I'm going to have to disagree that logic is a language or symbolic. I think that substantially diminishes the reliability of logic.
Of course the symbols USED in in propositional or predicate logic is a symbol but I definitely don't think that the symbolism is equivalent to the system. "Language is the army of metaphors". If logic is just a language then it is a symbol for... what?
I'm not sure if logic is just intuitive, or if it is by definition, but it is NOT metaphorical.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 Then what is it?
' If logic is just a language then it is a symbol for... what?'
A language isn't a symbol. Symbols are a part of language.
'I'm going to have to disagree that logic is a language or symbolic. I think that substantially diminishes the reliability of logic.'
Do you think that calling maths a language diminishes its reliability? How about c++? Are computer programming languages unreliable? How is this unreliability expressed? How is it detected?
transferosome 1 year ago
@transferosome
"A language isn't a symbol. Symbols are a part of language."
That couldn't be further from the truth. You need to look up some work on modern linguistics. (actually that was settled over 50 years ago but everything is based off of that)
You computer language example just shows how much you don't understand. C++ translates to binary, which translates to on/off (in primitive computers it was done with pipes and valves). Language is always a symbol for something external.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 OK, I will be willing to accept that 'language is a symbol' if you can provide a reference for me to research, although it would probably require a redefinition of the word 'symbol' as I currently use it.
'You computer language example just shows how much you don't understand. ... Language is always a symbol for something external.'
You misunderstand. I was trying to explore what you meant by 'unreliable' and asking how it related to languages like maths and C++.
transferosome 1 year ago
@transferosome
"if you can provide a reference for me to research"
Lookup Ferdinand Saussure. He never actually wrote a book, instead he just published his lecture notes that includes diagrams to explain the issue.
C++ and other programming languages aren't "reliable" in the sense that they aren't logical. They are logical, but they are logical because they symbolize logic. If logic is just another symbol, just another language, then what does logic symbolize?
Seriously check out Saussure =)
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101
"but the rules that are applied is what the logic is."
'If logic is just another symbol, just another language, then what does logic symbolize?'
I would say that the rules express the relationships between the things represented by the the symbols.
Logic represents our best guess at the rules of reality but the laws of logic would have to change if we found, for example, that something could be both A and ¬A at the same time. (See Quantum Logic for examples like this...)
transferosome 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 However, I am clearly not as well read on the subject as yourself so I may well be talking through my hat.
I am interested in how:
p || !p
is symbolising logic whereas:
P v -p
IS logic.
It seems to me that one is applied to representations of values in computer memory while the other is applied to real world objects and concepts. They are both abstractions.
Hat comment also applies here.
I will read Saussure. :)
transferosome 1 year ago
@transferosome
I think you are misunderstanding me. Both are symbolizing, that is my point. I think what DAA is saying is that P v -p is logic.
"Logic is a language, and like any language, logic describes things...." at :51
If we understand P v -p (and other symbols commonly used in predicate and propositional logic) then we have, in a sense, made the same mistake as the logical positivists. If that was really the problem, I think you were on the right track anyways. =)
insidetrip101 1 year ago
@insidetrip101 Also, I don't dispute that computer languages provide symbolic layers of abstraction of physical properties (the flow of electrons through semiconductors in this case).
I just currently think of a language as a set of symbols (and rules, etc.), rather than as a single symbol.
I suppose you could say that C++ symbolises assembly language, but in my mind that phrase implies many symbols.
Am I wrong?
transferosome 1 year ago
@transferosome
Been thinking and I didn't really answer your question fully. You are right in the sense that language is a set of symbols, but I would say the rules are what makes the language "logical". The symbols that make up propositional and predicate logic, but the rules that are applied is what the logic is. The basic symbols try to express it most fully, but they are still symbols and not logic itself. "The symbol is always arbitrary." If logic is a symbol then it is also arbitrary. =S
insidetrip101 1 year ago
I mean no disrespect when i say this, but are you related to Captain James Tiberius Kirk
openaircathedral 1 year ago
this video is amazing
do0me0nice 1 year ago
soooo... when are you going to do your marxism follow-up video? i checked through the comments section of your previous two vids and there wasn't much of any response to any of the questions people asked you. now, it just kinda seems like you're stalling. certainly, you could have come up with a video by now if marxism was all that great.
cristoballs 1 year ago
2:19-3:10 was the most complex way of saying 2+2=4 I've ever seen D:
theneonfire 1 year ago
'2:19-3:10 was the most complex way of saying 2+2=4 I've ever seen D:'
Then, theneonfire, you have never lived.
:P :)
transferosome 1 year ago
I appreciate your use of props. lol you're so cute James.
CrucifyMy5elf 1 year ago
@CrucifyMy5elf Yeah James is pretty hawt. I'd smash.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Rofl... I'll bet. I wonder if he's open to a 3 way?
CrucifyMy5elf 1 year ago
@CrucifyMy5elf How about it James? You can sleep with a black guy and a blonde chick at the same time. That has to satisfy like 4 or more fantasies at once.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe LMAO omfg I luv u tyler.
CrucifyMy5elf 1 year ago
@MauricXe James, it has been about a week. I'm in need of some lovin. CrucifyMy5elf and I are still waiting on that there response.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Oh my god you're such a geek. But I'm pretty sure James is the type that's up for anything so we don't even need to ask him. He'll just jump right in if the opportunity arises.
CrucifyMyself7 1 year ago
the cat could be alive and dead if it's a zombie.
The T-Virus Kitty.
GothicGodlessLiberal 1 year ago
in schrodinger's alternate unniverse your cat is dead. but in this current one your cat hates you for grabbing him like that. :P
mku17ra 1 year ago
Great vid!!
luvav8n 1 year ago
Might be my favorite video by DasAmericanAtheist!
I fucking love this guy
fullygodfullyhuman 1 year ago
I fail to see how this has anything to do with Marxism....waiting....
cowboycoco 1 year ago
I think his channel is not available anymore.
dioseolo 1 year ago
Good video; too bad it's a VR to that other character. You're pissing into the wind.
bayesianconspiracy 1 year ago
ohhh the ownage is overwhelming i cant take it..."how god not existing makes 2 +2 not = 4"....hahahaha
SEEequalsTHREE 1 year ago
wouldn't it be great though if cats WERE beer?
sammcalpine 1 year ago
Your video contained reasoned arguments, beer and a kitty cat. That's just all kinds of awesome!
smaakjeks 1 year ago
Hey Das, what kinds of apples do you eat while honeycrisps aren't in season?
LtotheoganX 1 year ago
awww, loved the video, james.
even if YER A FUKKEN COMMIE FAAG!
Ilikenuman 1 year ago
Yeah, that guy is kinda....wet behind the ears. I actually thought you were going to thrash him lol
vbfl920 1 year ago
I suppose I'll play devil's advocate on the last point and say that since god claims to be a living tautology (I am that I am) then god accounts (is) the equals sign in 2 + 2 = 4. Therefore if god did not exist, there would be no equivalnce relation between the three symbols 2,2,4.
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands That argument falls to pieces when one realises that god of the major religions (at least, as far as I'm aware) is omnipotent, omnipresent, &c., all of which entail contradictions. The argument about 'could god create a rock so heavy he couldn't move it' is just a realisation of the paradox resultant from the assumption that god is omnipotent and consistent. One cannot be powerful over everythin, because this would mean that one is powerful over both things and not-things. A ≠ ¬A
Ibuiltatower 1 year ago
@Ibuiltatower Right, I wouldn't use the medieval omni-god in this respect. On the 2+2 example, my foil would be the Parmenidean god (which is the god of the western logos). This god is simply the unity of what exists (=), or is.
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands Even still, that doesn't solve the problem, as, the requirement that god exist isn't there. For example, if the entirety of existence is in the concept of god, then saying that A is a subset of G (G=God) isn't helpful. You can just as easily simply say that A=A, or that A is a subset of 1. The assigning of G=1 is an assumption which simply isn't required in the reasoning. While A subset (1 = G) can be true, A subset 1 is simpler, and therefore still the better.
Ibuiltatower 1 year ago
@Ibuiltatower Well, I'm not sure. If we were to argue along those lines and I had the job of arguing for an ultimate or most comprehensive set, I would make sure we were using the same set theory and that someone else was buying the whiskey.
On the other hand, I think using a classical example like 2+2 does lend itself to a kind of Parmendian god as metaphysics. Once could then use a phenomenological/deconstructionist theory to account for empirical differences, or not.
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands Of course, when one deals in set theory one must always be aware that no matter how logical, strange paradoxes can just jump out of nowhere and start tearing into your argument.
Even so, the thing is, even when dealing with something even simple like 2+2, the moment you make a god with which it can be consistent, the god becomes needless for the proof. It can be added, but it becomes a null element. Maths wouldn't work if it didn't.
Ibuiltatower 1 year ago
@Ibuiltatower But 2+2 isn't the god, right? (actually i'm tired of the term god. Lets use "Goofage").
Goofage is the equals sign (=). In short, Goofage is the unity that holds reality together. Without Goofage there are only signs that are recognizable as such only in regards to how they differ from each other.
But in fact, without Goofage even difference would be unintelligible. For how could one understand that something is different without a prior sharing of a common Goofage?
threeofwands 1 year ago
@threeofwands Even still, Goofage isn't needed. Nor is Goofage specifically valid. It doesn't matter what you call the bijection, whether you call it god, Goofage, or an equals sign, its label isn't what characterises it. It's characterised SOLELY by its operational relationship in the same way '+' and 'banana' are. To borrow another example, in chess you can call it a knight, a paard, or a Springer; that doesn't change what it is. Nor does it inherit any new qualities from its label.
Ibuiltatower 1 year ago
Eloquent and to the point as always. You'd be the perfect philosophy teacher :-)
gronkar66 1 year ago
But 2+2 does not equal 4 in a field of characteristic 3 ...
Good response. This is one of the most frustrating topics when I try to refute Christians. It is so hard to articulate where the fallacy is when they argue this point in a convoluted yet elegant way. I always want to respond, "But you're just saying things. Until you make an actual argument, there is nothing for me to say."
NSquarticsurface 1 year ago
"What we do say is: logic works." Then you go on to explain how it "works," but how does one define what "works" exactly?
shotinthedark90 1 year ago
@shotinthedark90
Logic works by being internally consistent and sound.
smaakjeks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He removed the video . . .
sweatytoothmadman 1 year ago
"Yours might be green, mine are definatly red."
Mystile33 1 year ago
Uhh, other4815 removed the video you are responding to...
That's interesting.
bushonomics 1 year ago
In his attempts to prove the proposition "God exists," Other4815 always relies on the following structure (albeit informally stated):
P1: God is the (only) source of X.
C1: X cannot exist without God.
P2: X exists.
C2: God exists... and He is the Christian God, and the Bible is His inspired, inerrant holy word, and He wants you to not be gay or to have pre-marital sex, and He will send you to Hell if you don't believe in Him.
X can be logic, morals, life, Fox News, etc...
TheHogTieChamp 1 year ago
What if I say that "2+2" is a nonsensical starting point? Kind of like asking "does your mom know you're gay?" or something like that. It makes the assumption that there's such a thing as exactly 2 when there isn't.
zach9899 1 year ago
If, sir, you are contending that Socrates was not a God, or at least a Hero, then you will be hearing from my lawyers!
HConstantine 1 year ago
What do you mean X is not A and B at the same time? If X= human, A= man, and B= white, WHY couldn't X a human being be both man and white at the same time. Of course X cannot equal non-X.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
Your cat might hate you.
mchance27 1 year ago
To say logic is logical is a tautology. Tautologies are always true.
Blogrich55 1 year ago
So how can something that only exists in your "noodle" logically exist in the world first?
Blogrich55 1 year ago
@Blogrich55 I think he's trying to say that if there were no real apples we'd have nothing to base our conception of apples on.
My only problem with this is most everything that has ever been invented had to begin as a concept. So in that sense I think DAA is mistaken.
tiggster13 1 year ago
Kitteh!
Itsrealhands 1 year ago
"Show me how god not existing would make Socrates not mortal." I believe that should become a quotable quote. Or at least the battle cry against the logic-less (rather than illogical) Xians. Interesting vid, comme d'habitude.
bjcdrama 1 year ago
I was told not to discuss my noodle in public at a very early age.
GoblinXXX 1 year ago
Hmmm… Perhaps the secret is in the noodle.
God has no object.
Socrates has an object. Socrates’ object is impermanent giving evidence of mortality. Logically he was mortal before he was objectively mortal.
Afterward Socrates dwells only in the noodle and has no object.
Both God and Socrates are now subjective, without objects and providing no evidence of mortality.
...Is that cheating?
lucifael1 1 year ago
Well done! I just saw that other whatever number video about "logic" yesterday and figured I'd leave it for the more philosophically inclined, so I'm glad you tackled it. I'll save ammo for another video of his.
Zaunstar 1 year ago
@Buruc hmmmmm...must be a glitch.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
You should make a video on fuzzy logic, rather more interesting than "ordinary" logic.
Mig440 1 year ago
@Mig440 Indeed! However, I'm not an expert on forms of logic.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
There are some videos here on youtube on the subject that can give a glimpse of what it can be used for and is used for and also some of the philosophical consequences of it.
Mig440 1 year ago
According to Balrdic 2 apples + 2 apples = some apples
Alternatively, 2 apples + 2 apples = 3 apples....plus that other one
dave28lax 1 year ago
What about 2+2=fish?
(for those who don't get it, its from an episode of the Nickelodeon cartoon "Fairly Odd Parents" from about 7 years ago)
BigBlueSpaceGoat 1 year ago
Great vid.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@Buruc
I gotta ask.. What do you mean by the 'atheist world view'? Atheism is just the name for the "I don't believe in God/gods" crowd. There's no common world view, that we all have to share. We don't have atheist priests tell us which minority to like or dislike, who to vote for etc. ;)
Atheism doesn't tell you anything about a person's stance on politics, racism, homosexuality, evolution or whatever. It's simply a 'No' to the "Do you believe in God?" question. That's it. :)
gnawershreth 1 year ago
2 + 2 = 5 for high values of 2. (sorry, computer geek joke) :P
Brianswers 1 year ago
@Brianswers Do you have the shirt too? :)
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe Sadly no :)
Brianswers 1 year ago
Awesome. Thanks for this, James. ^_^
PhysicalConservative 1 year ago
@PhysicalConservative You're welcome :o)
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
Wesley was 'mostly dead' which is slightly alive ;-)
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere Precisely!
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
I'm not sure he will get it. Or whether he will want to get it. But funny video :)
volbla 1 year ago
Lmao! It took me 'til the last sentence before I knew what you were talking about. :)
akrulla 1 year ago
Well done. This is the point that TheoreticalBullshit makes when refuting TAG. I think you've really managed to drive the point home here though.
BurntEngineOil 1 year ago
@BurntEngineOil Indeed--his series of videos is exhaustive...I tried to capture as much of the essence as I could.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
Don't know if this what the person you're responding to was driving at, but I think there's something mystical about the fact that logical systems are always incomplete. To me, it implies that description and analysis is fundamentally a 'part' of reality, and so cannot encapsulate the 'whole' of it.
gerontodon 1 year ago
At some point after this video went up.. other4815's Channel went unavailable.
sickmary 1 year ago
lol ur a legend ;-)
FUCKOFFYOURGAY 1 year ago
Very well done. FSM approves of the noodliness going on in that noodle of yours.
GreatBigBore 1 year ago
great video man.
Also.
KITTEH!
amotue 1 year ago
What always amazes me is the people who actually need this explained (although your elucidation was exquisite), people who say: "logic doesn't always work." or "you can't calculate everything" or even worse "sometimes you can't use reason to solve problems".
It's just an excuse not to have to think.
8DX 1 year ago 2
Super vid, i would have mentioned that numbers have an ordinal property, which leads to bigger infinities than the regular infinity - the aleph sys. counting of infinities divised by Cantor. ;o)
Hythloday71 1 year ago
@Hythloday71 That's a very good point. I plan to eventually make a video discussing infinity...and then a video discussing nothing...but not a video ABOUT nothing--well, actually I suppose it *is* about nothing...hmmm...I'm sure you get what I mean.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
@DasAmericanAtheist - LOL - I can tell u what would be good vid to do, with current reading and your video prompting much thought. - Does Math / Logic exist separate to man or nature, is 'mathematics unreasonably effective?' - I have my own ideas, but i'd be interested in yours !
Hythloday71 1 year ago
If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it fall, does it make a noise?
LynnWellin 1 year ago
Apple noodles, sounds tasty :D
Scarletpooky 1 year ago
AHA! you have a Marxist apple! :)
symelian 1 year ago
That was a very interesting video. I've never sat down and thought about logic, just sort of took it for granted.
Cheers
Swidhelm 1 year ago
I'm glad I was stoned when I watched this. Otherwise I may have gotten lost!
CandiBristol 1 year ago
5*s for Hugo :D
MontegoFilms 1 year ago
@MontegoFilms He did not enjoy it...he'll get over it though.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
Wait a minute, isn't the simple fact that quantum physics doesn't behave under the laws of logic, in fact, proof that logic is a product of human observation of the world, and not in fact a product of god. Because if logic comes from god, then quantum physics would follow these logical laws he created. This is actually very important, because that acts as proof that logic is something that we created to discuss the macro universe, and not in fact, gods universal laws.
MasterDebator809 1 year ago
@MasterDebator809 Absolutely--when I said "the world we live in" what I really had in mind was the "middle" world--but I didn't want to add another point that needed to be clarified.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
'unless its schrodingers cat...'
saw it coming! still lolold.
GallusSapien 1 year ago
Nice one.
I like how you make your core point perfectly clear at the end.
Shoemagic 1 year ago
I was actually expecting this video, how nice that some other subscriber called your attention to it so quickly.
FluidDeconstructor 1 year ago
Great vid. But I'm afraid you've confused other4815...
thalamay 1 year ago
Pet peeve: Can people please read up on Schrödinger's cat. It was a thought experiment that was ment as a critique to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.
FurieMan 1 year ago
James, you are a genius.
joshcena33 1 year ago
* watching the math fly above her head*...kitty! ok i understood at least part of that but please never use math again x.x
Kionala 1 year ago
Really well done!
abbynormal0ne 1 year ago
other4815's mind may seem to be closed tighter than a bear trap but then again I, at a point in the past, would have said many of the things he has. I am now an atheist and much happier. There is hope for him still. Thanks for framing this response to him in a civil manner.
OregonAlleyCat 1 year ago
in this universe, cats scratch you when you grab them like that.
mku17ra 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He states in the video that the answer must be void of logic as to avoid circularity. So, if "Logic comes from God" is truly the answer then that statement must therefore be void of logic, too. Oops. Not sure he meant for that to happen.
alawrence89 1 year ago
Hugo is an atheist prop cat. I like the tie in to language in all it's various forms to illustrating logic
LJonYT 1 year ago
Red??? Those apples are gray!
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
I have to ask the same question every time I hear a theist bring up logic:
Which logic are you talking about? Because there's lots of different kinds: classical, fuzzy, paraconsistent, intuitionist... and they don't all agree on... well, pretty much anything. So which of these divergent logics does their God hold true in His mind? And what does he have against the other logics? And why do they all still work so damn well?
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Usually, when a theist talks about logic, what he really means is "common sense".
thalamay 1 year ago
I can show you that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4. I'm just going to need a cage of rats...
geewillie1986 1 year ago 2
The look on the face of that cat when you picked it up (3:27) was priceless. It was as if to say "I will kill you in your sleep"
Idofphoenix 1 year ago
@3:10: What brand of beer?
EvoGenVideos 1 year ago
@EvoGenVideos IC light (Iron City, that is)--made here in Pittsburgh. Unfortunately the company is bankrupt and is "bleeding out"...then I'll have to drink something mainstream like coors...yuk! I wonder how Sam Adams light is?
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
Sam Adams Light is ... ok. Definitely a few clicks up from Coors.
Ever tried Flying Dog? It's made down here in MD if memory serves. All kinds of varieties, and less *typical* than Sam Adams.
Just an idea! Take care...
bushonomics 1 year ago
@DasAmericanAtheist
Sam Adams Light is a great beer; hoppy, fresh, and bold for a light beer.
h0tsex0r 1 year ago
you're really going to respond to this guy? This is the guy who gives advice about sex... and is a virgin...
theguruofreason 1 year ago
@theguruofreason It was by request.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
The deafening swooshing noise you may be hearing is your explanation passing over other4815's head.
johntheother 1 year ago 4
You are soooo freaking hot in black and white :)
AngelOne11 1 year ago
Now I'm just hungry and thirsty.
Uhlbelk 1 year ago
I can see the initial objection now "Well the uniformity in the world is because of God so ipso facto without God no uniformity, thus no logic"
ShikaNinja 1 year ago
I think other4815's answer will go something like this, "Oh yeah, so's your mother! Ha! I win", then he and blockofsod will meet on Blog Talk Radio and laugh and laugh and laugh!
disrxt 1 year ago
X is not A and B at the same time? Tell that to quantum physicists.
:P
arcooke 1 year ago
A tautology is tautologous;)
david521598 1 year ago
boom
shreddakj 1 year ago
Damn...Other 4815's head it going to explode. LMAO Hope he films it.
ReligiousJezta 1 year ago
I'm familiar with Other4815, he's pretty frustrating. I really wanna see what he can say to this, I really do.
MrMultiPat 1 year ago
dude, awesome video, but for a theist as dumb as other, you might not wanna get too detailed xD he'll have to go pray that he understands what you are talking about
WhiteTiger7789 1 year ago
just got off stickem. and here this is. goddam, you lecture. discussionary
lecture. the way i do. now i know why i like your logic, or rather the order in
which you choose to present sense. it actually comes from what you think is
you. and you are close to correct. your tense is 'presentation perfect'. are you
always going to be this way??? hahha. no. and that cat by legend is both
dead and alive with nine lives and apparantly the apt number of deaths.
tks for comments
jumbobobcleo 1 year ago
Other4815 is going to have to spend hours picking up the bits of his brain.... HIS HEAD A'SPLODE!
AgentOfDoubt 1 year ago
15/5 stars. Great job indeed.
NotWorthPrayers 1 year ago
2+2= 22. There, God does exist!
Lulz, sorry, just had to XD
GreatEighthSin 1 year ago
Shadizar666 1 year ago
I've used this point to disprove the existence of gods. Unfortunately, it takes more than logic to convince a fundie.
PluralOfEverything 1 year ago
"I tell you, we are on Earth to fart around, and don't let anyone tell you different."
Kurt Vonnegut
Nibielari 1 year ago
@Nibielari good one guy. you have an excellent memory. excellent timing,
but james may not get it. if vonnegut doesnt fall beneath his radar, ill be
rather surprised. he doesnt miss much. but occassionally some of us are
less than perfect. hahaha. goood one guy. the darteth taketh the aireth out
of the balloonith.
jumbobobcleo 1 year ago
@jumbobobcleo I love Vonnegut, as a matter of fact. In my top 5 favorite authors.
DasAmericanAtheist 1 year ago
@DasAmericanAtheist my goodness, you are a lovely child. hahah. i think i
love you again and still.....
jumbobobcleo 1 year ago