Wikileaks says Wednesday is the End for Hillary.

[juan]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:04:32 -0000
xorcist at sigaint.org wrote:

> >> "AXIOM: A proposition regarded as self-evidently true,
> >
> >
> > 	Axioms being self-evidently true means that if you choose to
> > 	DENY them, you need to USE them in the denial process
> > 	anyway, therefore proving that they ARE true. Try assuming
> > that the so called identity principle is not 'true' and see where
> > 	you get.
> 
> 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.



> If one of my axioms IS the law of non-contradiction, I
> can then exclude one, or more of the axioms to rectify the situation,
> including the principle of non-contradiction.
> 
> I'm not aware of any systems of logic that deny the law of identity.
> It is, of course, quite foundational. But since you claimed that
> axioms can be proven: well go ahead and prove it, then. After all,
> the burden of proof is never on the skeptic.
> 
> 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. 

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





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

	Nonsense.


> It is used in mathematics, as well, in formal
> paraconsistent logics, which can not only be inconsistency-tolerant,
> but also have more states to a proposition than merely "true" and
> "false."
> 
> 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. 




> 
> In these complex systems they are quite useful. Why should we not use
> them in other complex areas of thought?
> 
> Simply because you're not aware of them? Well then, OK. So then we
> have to AGREE on which system to use first, then.
> 
> "QED"
> 
> >
> > 	I don't need to invoke internet authority or the sacred
> > 	wikipedia scriptures xorcist. I can explain what an axiom
> > in my own words.
> 
> I don't either. I've explained several times that axioms are
> assumptions, 

	There you go again...Axioms are NOT suppositions.



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

	Either way what I said stands. So fuck off.



> 
> Quite good. Let's continue.
> 
> >
> > 	And even going by that definition, if axioms are
> > self-evidently TRUE, then people who don't 'agree' that they are
> > true are self-evidently...troubled.
> 
> They are self-evident only from a certain way of thinking. 

	
	Are you drunk? High? Trolling? Axiom-blind? Or what? =)




> For
> example, in geometry, a point is axiomatic. An infinitely small
> object with no dimension. This is an intellectual abstraction that is
> self-evident and meaningful only from the perspective of that
> intellectual simplification used in geometry.
> 
> Physically, there is nothing with no dimension. From an idealized,
> abstracted, way of thinking the existence and meaning of a point is
> self-evident. From a physical perspective, it is utter rubbish.
> 
> What perspective you have, the way you're approaching a subject,
> informs which axioms you'll use as the foundation of your reasoning.
> 
> > 	(and by the way, your first source is about mathematics, not
> > 	logic or philosophy in general)
> 
> I'm quite aware of that. 



	Yes, just as you are aware that I must be a goldman sachs CEO
	because I am writing to you using a cell phone. 






> So? Formal logic, as studied and used by
> philosophy, is a branch of mathematics.
> 
> 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.




>