"God cannot create a square circle"

[untermensche]

That depends on how you go about making the food appear. One of the good things about omnipotence is that you actually have an infinite variety of ways of achieving any result. Jesus decided to go with changing how addition works. That's just how he rolls.

Nothing about addition was changed. If things appear by some miracle addition is still the same thing. But now you have to add the things that appeared by a miracle.

A miracle isn't a violation of logic. It's a violation of what we think are the laws of the universe.

A ball doesn't roll down the stairs as opposed to up because of logic.

Right. It seems that you're involved in another thread where you're arguing against someone who's saying that logic gets violated and you've confused your responses there with this thread. All logic does is help tell us what the laws of the universe are. If those laws change, logic doesn't ever get violated, it's just that proper logical analysis leads to different conclusions.

I await that logical analysis.

The laws of the universe have nothing to do with logic. If they would change logic would be the same thing. No matter what universal laws some being existed in two plus two would always equal four. How would changing gravity change that?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Nothing about addition was changed. If things appear by some miracle addition is still the same thing. But now you have to add the things that appeared by a miracle.

A miracle isn't a violation of logic. It's a violation of what we think are the laws of the universe.

A ball doesn't roll down the stairs as opposed to up because of logic.

Right. It seems that you're involved in another thread where you're arguing against someone who's saying that logic gets violated and you've confused your responses there with this thread. All logic does is help tell us what the laws of the universe are. If those laws change, logic doesn't ever get violated, it's just that proper logical analysis leads to different conclusions.

I await that logical analysis.

The laws of the universe have nothing to do with logic. If they would change logic would be the same thing. No matter what universal laws some being existed in two plus two would always equal four. How would changing gravity change that?

Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works? I'm really not sure what conversation you think you're having here because your responses are getting more and more randomized as time goes on.

If an omnipotent being changed reality so that a property of the universe was that every time someone put two things together with another two things, a fifth thing would also be there (call it magically appearing if it makes you happy), then any logical analysis which suggests that two plus two equals four would fail against empirical observations. It would be an invalid analysis because it doesn't match up to reality.

You're correct that the laws of the universe have nothing to do with logic and that would be a valid point to make if you were in a conversation with anyone who was suggesting such a thing. Given that there's nobody who's suggesting such a thing, it's just one more randomized response.

 

[untermensche]

Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?

My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.

If an omnipotent being changed reality so that a property of the universe was that every time someone put two things together with another two things, a fifth thing would also be there (call it magically appearing if it makes you happy), then any logical analysis which suggests that two plus two equals four would fail against empirical observations. It would be an invalid analysis because it doesn't match up to reality.

Again, a magically appearing object is still an object in need of counting. You count it, so two plus two, plus the always appearing one, equals five. The rules of math don't change. And math here is just an example of logic.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.

If an omnipotent being changed reality so that a property of the universe was that every time someone put two things together with another two things, a fifth thing would also be there (call it magically appearing if it makes you happy), then any logical analysis which suggests that two plus two equals four would fail against empirical observations. It would be an invalid analysis because it doesn't match up to reality.

Again, a magically appearing object is still an object in need of counting. You count it, so two plus two, plus the always appearing one, equals five. The rules of math don't change.

But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

 

[untermensche]

But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

Addition doesn't change.

There is no rule of addition that says you don't count magically appearing objects when determining the sum of objects.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

Addition doesn't change.

There is no rule of addition that says you don't count magically appearing objects when determining the sum of objects.

I have no idea who you're having a conversation with, but it doesn't seem to be me.

 

[untermensche]

But they do change. Two and two no longer gets you to four. Circles have no edges and four edges at the same time. A being a subset of B means that B is a subset of A. Logical analysis that remains the same and doesn't take the new rules of reality into account are no better than communism - they work in theory but fail when they're applied to reality.

Addition doesn't change.

There is no rule of addition that says you don't count magically appearing objects when determining the sum of objects.

I have no idea who you're having a conversation with, but it doesn't seem to be me.

You claim that the rules of addition would change if two objects were placed on a table then two more which would cause a fifth to magically appear.

This would not change the rules. You can't change the rules.

Especially when you abstract the situation and use symbols. Here it is easier to see. In abstract symbols, 2+2 will always equal 4. And what happens in any universe doesn't matter at all. The symbols combine with one another with defined rules, not according to what happens in the real world.

 

[Kharakov]

Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?

My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.

Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.

 

[untermensche]

Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?

My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.

Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.

I think consistency must exist before a being can invent logic. And to a degree logic reflects that consistency.

But without a certain amount of consistency you won't get evolved beings in the first place.

 

[Kharakov]

Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?

My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.

Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.

I think consistency must exist before a being can invent logic.

That might not be true. Perhaps logical consistency was selected for from infinite possibilities, in other words, it existed as a possibility and was consciously selected instead of being "invented".

 

[Juma]

Why the hell would changing gravity change how addition works?

My point exactly. Change the laws of the universe and logic doesn't change.

Unless logic is a consequence of the fundamental constants. Wouldn't that be interesting.

I think consistency must exist before a being can invent logic.

That might not be true. Perhaps logical consistency was selected for from infinite possibilities, in other words, it existed as a possibility and was consciously selected instead of being "invented".

Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...

 

[MxM111]

My view on "God cannot create a square circle" is simply that it is invalid sentence. All sentences listed below invalid and carry zero meaning:

"God can create square circle"
"God can not create a square circle"
"God can asdadsfaef"
"asdfa can asdfasd dqaefr"

It is just first two SOUND like there is some meaning in them, but there is none.

 

[Kharakov]

Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...

Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.

Discovering logic is not the same thing as inventing it...

 

[untermensche]

Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...

Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.

Discovering logic is not the same thing as inventing it...

It's like these physicists who talk about how the universe is a mathematical construct.

I say, no, mathematics is an incredibly flexible tool that can explain moving systems.

The universe has nothing to do with mathematics. Mathematics is a human invention.

 

[Kharakov]

Man, I can't even think of a non-sarcastic way to respond. Seriously, that is... anyway, here is the sarcastic response:

Sure, the mathematical principles that the universe follows were invented by, rather than discovered by, humans. We discovered abstract mathematical entities by "inventing" them, instead of discovering them. lol... anyway.. Seriously?

 

[untermensche]

Man, I can't even think of a non-sarcastic way to respond. Seriously, that is... anyway, here is the sarcastic response:

Sure, the mathematical principles that the universe follows were invented by, rather than discovered by, humans. We discovered abstract mathematical entities by "inventing" them, instead of discovering them. lol... anyway.. Seriously?

I'm not sure I follow, but there is a distinction between inventing something and discovering it.

And in terms of mathematics this is an unending debate.

Is it something out there that humans discovered? Is god a mathematician?

Or is it something humans just invented?

There is no answer. Only opinions.

 

[Juma]

Eh. That is what he wrote... If it didnt "exist as a possibility" it couldnt exist...

Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.

Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.

 

[Kharakov]

Nah Juma, I've talked with untermensche before, he believes logic is an invention of man, rather than a discovery.

Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

Good idea! I'm now patenting logic and anytime someone says something that makes sense, they owe me a dollar.

 

[Juma]

Of course it is an invention. It is a creation of the "hardwiring" of humans and a discovery of the "software" of humans.

If you call something discovered by witnessing the natural order an "invention".

All inventions are cinclusions drawn from witnessing the "natural order".