DevilSolution

Science cant comprehend outside of its only tool, which is logic. Its a very powerfull tool when used to its full potential, such as engineering, math and computer science but it incapable of escaping itself. God, in whatever form exists in the abstract, the irrational and illogical. Take it for what is.

axiomatic proofs are observational and not logical then? or a state of limbo given that we must presume an observational truth then apply logic to it? logic seems self defined in its essence, though we cant axiomatically prove it? and just because we cant axiomatically prove logic doesnt mean its not the pure form of math? i cant get my head around something mathematical that isnt logic, which therefor makes math a prouct of logic.

Nothing illogical exists, probable logic is fuzzy logic, looking at a situation subjectively and applying a given law to it..... Subjectively you perceive a situation with your own logic or goals, be it personal, humanity, earth or existential, they are all subjective to you. Objectively speaking everything thats logically possible can happen, even if you perceive it subectly as illogical it ony existed because it logically could which makes it logical. Your completely missing the point, if all cereal are made of food, it doesnt matter if you put milk with them, they are still food.... and again i iterate the point that my original premise wasnt "humans think logically", it was "logic is the primary tool forintellect" (and possibly consciousness)..... also im on a mbile device so its harder to para phrase you. as a little side note, considering the probability of your existence is infidecimally small, playing the lottery is actually rather logical. If you coud write or create a circuit of logc that defined everything in the universe (in a single expression), then the mere existence of religion, superstition etc within our universe and hence the expression mean they are logical. (self defined if you wish) As far as theoretical physicists proving something can come from nothing, wheres the proof? id very much like to meet these creators.

Your confusing pure logic with probable logic, if you had chose between your family dieing or 1000 people then probable logic would say save the thousand, pure logic would say either outcome is true, there is no false. I also said logic is our primary tool for intellect. We make sense of the world and adapt it using logic through the means of science, maths and engineering. Show me an example of something completely illogical humans do/done. logic and nature work in the same vane, nothing humans do is actually unnatural because we are a product of nature, in the same way nothing we do is illogical because logic dictates the laws of nature.

Could you not point them out? save me reading a whole book for something trivial.

Sure, logically were stronger together, even the weak offer something. Doesnt go against this logic or humans would be extinct. Logically speaking everything that has or will exist is proven logically, except existence. Also religious morals and my original statement regarding god and logic are seperate.

If you have no purpose you wouldnt exist.

Strange, if we presume 1 is something and 0 is nothing. the only premise is that at some point in time nothing existed, if not then somthing has existed forever which is nonsensicle because where did this "something" come from?

If all math has to be logical then it has to be a product of logic? im aware of principia mathmatica but havent looked into godels theorem, i know its supposed to contradict the premise all math can be reduced to pure logic. As a side question, does the above mentioned stop computer architecture being able to fully represnt reality?

(1 does not equal 0) & (Something can not come from nothing) are both true Get it? 1 does equal 0 means something came from nothing, which is logically false. Hence we do exist and logic itself is false. Were inside a box made from logic, everything that can, will and does exist can be expressed logically, except ourselves, or existence in a more existential sense. Its a bit fuzzy.

They're dense

The scientific implications of inbreading in wetern culture since 0 ad? Joking, which scientist has had the most influence in science? At what dates did specific laws/postulates get dscovered? any patterns? Why did certain scietific civilisations die out? etc etc. Science could be second nature to the debate such as the spanish being successfull explorers due to their scietiric advances...and the british etc etc. And the "what ifs", what if ameica didnt pretend to get bombed by japan? what if einstein was a nazi.

Philosophy tells you "who" you are, science tells you "what" you are and you tell yourself "why" you are. Nauture is god and science thy bible. They are my favourite dennet quotes, dont quote me on them though.

post 3 expresses the question in a purer form. Im trying to express that logic is self falsifying or given that humans primary tool for evidence is logic, something can and does exist outside of logic that we cant conceive of (or prove).

I refer to pure logic, blue is NOT red, i am NOT you, blue AND red make purple....etc "something cant come from nothing" = true? 0 != 1 therefor "something came from nothing" = false? 1 == 0 thus, existence is illogical? Also math is more logic based than logic being more math based.

Just a quickie, is all math logical? i.e if its not logical it just aint math 2+2=4 true math 2+4=6 false jibba jabba The "rules" to the logic that defines math are man made? i.e BODMAS is just a set of rules we made up to describe the order of any equation. Finally is math a product of logic? sort if inferred from q1 Regards.

I'll start with the premise that we as humans only make sense of the world using logic, id go further and say that i define our fundamental ability to deduct logic gives rise to higher intelligence and possibly even consciousness itself. Given this premise, everything we consciously believe/percieve can be mapped logically. Therefor could the ability for us to conceive of "something from nothing" be impossible? If the above statement is true then god simply isnt logical. But is logic all there is? considering "something must have come from nothing". This isnt a very articulate explanation so i can expand or re-word it if it doesnt make sense. Regards.

Cute.

Amount is an extension of number, it works either way in that context. It's not grammatically incorrect. Amount is proportion, which is probably closer to the context of his post.

G4S is a security firm that runs (covert) operations all over the world, it also has a private army of mercenaries. What im curious about is whether this, or other cloak and dagger type firms could be responsible for moving and shaping the world around us, such as catalysing a combined europe, inducing civil unrest in the middle etc... Sorry if this is a conspiracy post, in retrospect it seems like one, if so just delete it. Kind regards, Devilsolution.

number is amount by proxy, or extension, which ever really...... As reference to the thread, who will clean your toilets, collect your garbage and make make your clothes if by your theory everyone will be of genius IQ. Also creativity requires no IQ at all....As is shown by your creative future

Organism has already been defined in this thread and I follow its definition.Consciousness although it does have a viscous definition by no means is understood. The terms were put into context so as to not confuse you, if you are alluding to there definition and my use and understanding of there definition, again, I placed it into context in the post above yours

(Ovcourse we are lead by instinct, its hardwired into our brains, to go against our instinct is unnatural, consciousness only allows us to appreciate our instincts and in some minor way control them, nothing more, otherwise we wouldnt be human ) Basic human instincts will lead to our eventual demise (we are selfish and greedy by and large), the fact were basing economical and political ideologies on fantasies (man made ideas) and not fiction (hard scientific vigour) means were headed to our inevitable doom. Capitalism is leading us down a one way street, looking at the earth as an organism or atleast specific aspects of the human sphere of the earth and drawing parallels to it with ourselves and other forms of life may be a more sustainable way of prolonging our collective procreation. We endlessly look for cures for cancer without looking at the cause, the cause is the cure.....and the cause is exponential growth, of any form. The capitalist system much like cancer is an exponential growth.... "We will decide what we do with the Planet. Stuff Gaia - we're in charge now!" ...... You sound so certain of yourself. Exactly what are "you" in charge of? Your in charge no more than your consumerism, unless ovcourse your a CEO at a multinational investment corp, in which case, you are right and i sincerely apologise . I very much mean looking at the human organism and using it as a template for the social, economic and political aspects of the earth in which we inhabit. I dont believe the earth is a living organism as is defined by science but i think modelling it as such may be possible if not essential for our combined progress. Also "whatever" consciousness "is" the planet is "not" that.....

In that sense humans themselves do, internally of course, organismic-ally. Biochemical processes are constantly happening that are "killing" themselves to get to some end. If we use the metabolic process as our parallel then A->B->C->D Only D will exist and a,b and c's chemical energy will be transferred in the process. What if we are the chemicals of the earths metabolic processes? Also your defining earth as a "parent" which is a conscious sentient being, not as ive already expressed an "unconscious" intergalactic cosmic organism (or organ, whichever fits the bill) Why would it not be wise? economic structures built on the nervous, biochemical and organismic processes happening in the body seem like pretty safe mechanism('s) to use as very efficient systems, would you not agree?