Ontology 2 - No such thing as logical precedence

The fallacious idea of "cause and effect" cannot be snuck back in through the back door by introducing the more woolly term "logical precedence".

Erratum: in my video I claim that the statement A IMPLIES B is equivalent to the statement Not(B) OR A.

Whilst I am only using this to illustrate how there is no such thing as logical precedence, the example is mistaken. The statement is in fact equivalent to Not(A) OR B




You keep making the point that I'm "constructing" things out of nothingness, for example that I am "constructing" the set of Natural numbers out of nothingness. That is not correct. What I am showing is that the existence of Natural Numbers is logically implied by the assumption of nothingness.

This is not a matter of "precedence". In a logical implication you cannot state that the original premise "preceeds" the implied conclusion. This does not change whether you do or do not take a temporal element into account.

The best way to understand this is by realising that logical implication can be re-written as a simple logical OR statement. For example the logical implication A IMPLIES B which to a layman's ear might suggest a precedence of the "premise" A over the "conclusion" B, is logically equivalent to the statemant B OR Not(A), which, if anything, might suggest a reversed order of "precedence".

Any argument based on logical "precedence" whether this is temporal or otherwise, is fatally flawed.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• debate
• about
• the
• existence
• of
• allah
• part
• two

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[paperduck20]

translation = I have blind faith?

[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]

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]

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.