Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[xorcist at sigaint.org]

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:04:32 -0000

>> No, one simply denies them. But, even if one HAD to USE them, that
>> would not prove them. I might use several axioms to derive a
>> contradiction.
>
> 	So one or more of your 'axioms' are not true and not really
> 	axioms. The method is called reductio ad absurdum.

No, it just means the axioms are incompatible.

And, reductio ad absurdum is quite a  bit more general  than proof by
contradiction, but I won't quibble.

>> But this all began not with a disagreement over the law of identity,
>> but over the law of non-contradiction.
>
>
> 	Which are closely related. And no, this all began with you
> 	being a cheap charlantan who can't write a semi consistent rant.
> 	Since your  rants are laughably inconsistent you embarked
> 	in even more stupid rants trying to 'prove'...who knows what
> 	about the 'logical' status of contradictory nonsense.

But, since you're familiar with reductio ad absurdum, perhaps you'd also
like to read up on examples of ad hominems as well.

Are they related? Yes, they are among the three classical laws of logic.
That is their relation. Other than that, they do not depend on each other
whatsoever.

Holding to them as in some way objective is a matter of tradition,
convenience, and little more than that.

>
> 	I am well aware that you ignored my reply to your nonsensical
> 	example with iran and nukes for instance, So fuck off.

I did ignore it. Because replying was futile with someone who doesn't even
have a grasp of axioms, and proof. But, if you insist:

>From the USA/Iran's individual points of view, it is logical and rational
to pursue the stated goals. It is rational for USA to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuke.

It is rational from Iran's POV to try to acquire one. Having nukes forces
other countries to the negotiating table rather than invasion. Sure, as
you point out, it might speed up invasion -- in to Tehran before they get
a nuke. But if an axiom that Iran is operating by is that sooner or later,
given USA's historical performance in the region, they WILL get invaded
regardless, it is quite rational to try to obtain a nuke to prevent that.

Individually, from different perspectives, and different goals it is
possible to reason to quite different conclusions.

You seem to be taking the position that there is Rational/Logical (note
caps) that somehow transcends these individual frameworks. I don't see it,
and if you really had a clear idea of it on any sort of firm basis, you
ought to write a book -- because no one else has such an idea either.

>> The principle of
>> non-contradiction IS denied, by example, in the philosophical school
>> of dialetheism.
>
> 	Nonsense.

What is nonsense? The philosophical school of dialetheism? Fine, that is
your opinion. I'll wager you couldn't argue against any of it,
successfully though. But in any case, it is TRUE that this school of
thought exists. And it is TRUE that they reject the classical principle of
non-contradiction; at least within certain bounds.

>> These, and other multi-value logics, generally, are useful in a wide
>> area of mathematics, physics, electronics and so on.
>
> 	I already dealt with the fact that 'complex' systems are made up
> 	of simpler 'linear' bits. You seem to have ignored it. I don't
> 	need to add anything.

I didn't ignore it, I was waiting to get some more ground-work covered.
You're right. Some complex systems can be simplified, and linearized and
dealt with that way. But not all can: hence the reason multi-value logics
exist in the first place.

But, more generally, in complex systems there is emergent behavior. One
might state the notion with the old phrase "the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts." The whole can develop properties that none of its parts
have. Moreover this can happen spontaneously, or at least accidentally
apart from the human design. So, the type of thinking or analysis that is
sufficient for a smaller part will not be sufficient for the whole.

You can use quite simple mathematics -- nothing more than algebra, to
characterize an audio amplifier, and an audio microphone. Under the right
conditions, those components will generate feedback -- and at that point,
algebra is entirely insufficient to characterize the system's performance.

In the same way, with governments, social systems, and so on where
emergent behavior and feedback are at play, one needs a wider view than
merely the algebraic philosophical notions that gave rise to a government,
or simple economic modeling only according to one view, and so on.

>>
>> I don't either. I've explained several times that axioms are
>> assumptions,
>
> 	There you go again...Axioms are NOT suppositions.

Wait for it...

>> r if you prefer, propositions, and are not subjected to
>> PROOF. You disagreed, so I quoted sources.

There we go.. right. So PROPOSITIONS, then. Statements that ARE REGARDED
(but not necessarily) as self-evidently true.

Not subject to proof, as you claimed. Let's just be clear about that.
You claimed that axioms can be proven. They cannot.

There ARE different systems of logic, with different axioms. The axioms
cannot be PROVEN, and therefore it is a matter of CHOICE which system
you're using. That choice may be for any reason, really. Utility is a good
one, and I've said above with regard to complex systems, but ignorance and
simply not knowing of more than one equally valid.

But that must be set out. There is no objective criteria of which to use.

>> Your statement about axioms was quite wrong. They are not subject to
>> proof. You're now trying to walk  that back and play a different
>> angle -- one that I handed to you -- that of self-evidence.
>
> 	Don't make up stuff . I provided my version (correct) and even
> 	went with your defination.

Denial #1.

>> And in any case, in philosophy, and informal logic, axioms cannot be
>> proven, as you have stated.
>
>
> 	I didn't state that. But it's beside the point	anyway.

Denial #2.

Refutation:

On Wed, October 5, 2016 6:11 am, YOU said:
>        Again, truth is NOT a matter of agreement. And axioms are not
>        to be 'agreed' upon. Also, AXIOMS CAN BE PROVEN. If axioms
>        couldn't be proven then any statement based on them would
>        be...unproven, meaningless, useless, et cetera.

Emphasis mine.