logic: In need of peoples opinions [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

View Full Version : logic: In need of peoples opinions

brave_new_world

07-11-2007, 10:39 AM

rossus

07-11-2007, 12:46 PM

hello,
i cannot give an intelligent opinion because i'm not intelligent...

but i do believe in logic to a certain degree.
by using logic, people were able to create a luxurious lifestyle... to create medicine... to create television etc.
so logic definately has it use.

but when you are living life only by trusting on logic, you are limiting yourself.
many people become atheïsts because their logic make it seem like there is no "god" or nothing supernatural,
but what do they know?

a human body is created by the universe,
how could the brain of the human understand the whole universe?

i don't think logic can understand the whole universe, because the brain is too small for it.
maybe the best way to understand the universe, is to be the universe...

not try to understand it from the inside-out, but from the outside-in. http://www.gamekaz.com/images/smiley/red_heart.gif

bigus_dickus

07-11-2007, 01:43 PM

Logic is in the eye of the logician.

logic (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=logic&searchmode=none)
1362, "branch of philosophy that treats of forms of thinking," from O.Fr. logique, from L. (ars) logica, from Gk. logike (techne) "reasoning (art)," from fem. of logikos "pertaining to speaking or reasoning," from logos "reason, idea, word" (see logos). Meaning "logical argumentation" is from 1601. Logical attested 1500 as "pertaining to logic;" 1588 as "conformable to laws of reasoning;" 1860 as "following as a reasonable consequence."

logos (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=logos&searchmode=none)
1587, "second person of the Christian Trinity," from Gk. logos "word, speech, discourse," also "reason," from PIE base *leg- "to collect" (with derivatives meaning "to speak," on notion of "to pick out words"); used by Neo-Platonists in various metaphysical and theological senses and picked up by N.T. writers. Other Eng. formations from logos include logolatry "worship of words, unreasonable regard for words or verbal truth" (1810 in Coleridge); logomachy "fighting about words" (1569); logomania (1870); logophobia (1923); and logorrhea (1902).

the word for "reason" is the same with "speech". what you say, you have reason to and what you say (or think), you create. there is a reason (a logos) for everything. logic can be common or partial, united or separated, circle or square, divine or individual, whole or fragmented.

therefore i agree with the above quote ...partially.

supertzar

07-11-2007, 03:32 PM

chris

07-11-2007, 03:43 PM

It's not true. Logic is like doing algebra. There is only one correct answer. Many people misunderstand it and come to conclusions that they believe are logical, but they are not. The problem is in not correctly assessing the variables of the situation.

I agree, logic is like a cog in a machine that sets it into action. If logic isn't there then no matter how much rationalising you can do, it still wouldn't work.

If however the logician wants to eliminate most of the illogical things then he will be left with more logical options though it doesn't mean they are correct or even if there is a correct answer.

malvern

07-11-2007, 04:31 PM

one mans logic is a nother mans nightmare.... as someone once said "there is more than one way to fck a pig, but does it make it right...."

freedom is yours :)

supertzar

07-11-2007, 04:44 PM

Something can be logical in a certain frame of reference, but incorrect outside of that frame of reference. For example:

A penny equals five cents and a nickel equals one cent. Therefore five pennies and a nickel equals 26 cents. That is a logical statement. There is no room for difference of opinion within the framework. The only thing to hash out is why in the world a penny equals five cents and a nickel equals one cent in this framework.

lizzy

07-11-2007, 04:45 PM

one mans logic is a nother mans nightmare.... as someone once said "there is more than one way to fck a pig, but does it make it right...."

freedom is yours :)

Yes. words are not numbers.
They use words on us and hide the numbers.

malvern

07-11-2007, 06:47 PM

lizzy
if a bar owner has 4 tables that seat 6 people , full 24 people.... agroup comes in and fills the tables ... each table every one buys around of drinks each.at £1/ drink..

table1 6 x£1 x6= 36
table2 6 x£1 x6= 36 tolal spent on drinks £144
table3 6 x£1 x6= 36
table4 6 x£1 x6= 36

same bar still 4 tables but one seats five and one seats 7 the others still seat six.... full 24 people, same group and still everyone buys round each for there table..
table1 6 x £1 x 6 = 36
table2 6 x £1 x 6 = 36
table3 5 x £1 x 5 = 25
table4 7 x £1 x 7 = 49 total spent on drinks £146

£2 more....

easy to use numbers on us aswell..... change the set up ..

freedom for all :)

lizzy

07-11-2007, 09:55 PM

them

07-11-2007, 10:59 PM

http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/Gloria%20Steinem%20Compressed.jpg

Hey everyone. I have recently come across a quote that goes:

Logic is in the eye of the logician

I would really appreciate very deeply if people say whether they agree with this or not and why. This is really getting to me and I need some intelligent outlook on this.

So please feel free to express what you think. Much appreciated. I love you all.

:) :) :) :)

(a) There is a formal language whose symbols separate it from ordinary language.

(b) In the formal language, L, the syntax is clearly separated from the semantics. The syntax is like the grammar of a natural language, specifying which sequences of symbols (called ‘formulas’) are permissible. Meaning does not occur in the syntax but in the semantics. Thus logical concepts such as sentence, axiom, formal proof and consistency are part of the syntax. Concepts such as truth, satisfiability and definability are part of the semantics. Formal proofs can be checked effectively and do not depend on the meaning of the terms in them.

(c) Within the syntax of L, the logical symbols are clearly separated from the non-logical symbols. The logical symbols include connectives such as ‘and’, ‘not’, ‘if…then…’. The meaning of the non-logical symbols changes with different interpretations, while that of the logical symbols does not. The non-logical symbols may include individual constants, which, in the semantics, are interpreted as specific individuals. There may also be function constants and relation constants, which are interpreted as specific functions and relations. Besides the logical and non-logical symbols, there are variables, which may be free or bound.

(d) The syntax gives a recursive definition for the formulas of L.

(e) There is a clear distinction between the object language L, in which our formulas occur, and the metalanguage, in which we speak about L. Within the metalanguage, we must define what truth means in L. Theorems in the metalanguage are called metatheorems.

(f) Usually there will be levels within our symbolic logic. The lowest level (called propositional logic) is that of the connectives ‘and’, ‘not’, and so on. The next level will have individual variables x and quantifiers (‘for all x’, ‘there exists an x’) over those variables. If that is the highest level, then we have first-order logic. But there may also be function variables (or relation variables) and quantifiers over them, giving second-order logic (see Second- and higher-order logics). In the simple theory of types, there are individual variables, function variables, variables for functions of functions, and so on, and this is sometimes called ω-order logic. We must decide which order our logic will have.

(g) We must also specify other matters. Will the semantics of our logic have only two truth-values, ‘true’ and ‘false’, as in traditional logic, or will it have three or more truth-values (see Many-valued logics)? Will our logic be ‘classical’ (in which the law of the excluded middle holds) or ‘intuitionistic’ (in which that law fails; see Intuitionism)? Will our logic be finitary (like all the logics discussed above) or will it be infinitary (that is, have infinitely long formulas, or have variable-binding operators that give the same effect, or have rules of inference with infinitely many premises; see Infinitary logics)?

(h) Finally, we must study the metatheory of L, that is, what general results can be proved, in the metalanguage, to be true of L. This includes the consistency and independence of the logical axioms for L as well as whether L is ‘complete’ (that is, whether every true sentence of L is provable in L).

them

07-11-2007, 11:21 PM

Mozart's Requiem Mass in D Minor I - Introitus and Kyrie - YouTube

http://www.societymusictheory.org/html/events/abstracts/smt-96.abstracts/yang.html

Riemann ~~ Hugo or Bernhard, for you?
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/20738/frontmatter/9780521820738_frontmatter.pdf

Riemann hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The real part of any non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function is ½.

Was he 'avin a larf?

baron von lotsov

08-11-2007, 02:15 AM

I'm trying to figure some basic mathematical truths about graphs. A graph is a set of nodes that are connected by lines. It does not matter about the position of the lines or the nodes, just the connections. A subset of all possible graphs is a tree and a tree is a graph that does not loop back on itself. However I don't want to restrict myself to trees but I want to be able to do things like exhaustive searches and other operations efficiently.

A major point that is helpful in all of this is the concept of a path, which is the sequence of nodes transversed to get from A to B. All nodes can be described using a root node and the path to it. Any node can be the root node if the entire graph is interconnected but there is also more than one path in a typical graph, except for a tree where there is only one. Another aspect is direction; do the links need a direction pointer? I'm still chewing over these matters but every now and again I find various theories that mathematically prove something to be true for all possible arrangements of graphs and trees, and this is very helpful. For example I have devised ways of storing data that is a mapping of a part of the graph representing a tree and it works for all possible configurations. Now I have a problem when I switch one of the links around. What sub trees will be affected and is there a more efficient algorithm than an exhaustive search of all sub trees.

Now you can see why smoking dope is helpful!

them

09-11-2007, 12:22 AM

[CENTER]Now you can see why smoking dope is helpful!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_sifSn8O8

edit

09-11-2007, 01:11 AM

for brainy people only
(http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?messageid=460252&mpage=1&showdate=11/8/07&forum=1)
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/av/htidntdt.jpeg
Neesie
11/8/2007 7:28 PM
for brainy people only

this website asks word definitions (mulitple choice). for everyone you answer right they donate a spoonful of rice to starving people in africa. i played it for a few minutes. I am so brainy i bet i fed someone for a whole week, LOL

try it, its fun

[link to freerice.com (http://freerice.com/index.php)]

_________________
I Really do have an Evil Twin!!

1 word = 10 grains
5 words = 50 grains
Play and feed

http://freerice.com/images/freeRiceLogo.gif

baron von lotsov

09-11-2007, 01:33 AM

[CENTER]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Li_sifSn8O8

This will keep you busy.

Graph theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit

09-11-2007, 01:36 AM

Its only water
In a strangers tear
Looks are deceptive
But distinctions are clear
A foreign body
And a foreign mind
Never welcome
In the land of the blind
You may look like we do
Talk like we do
But you know how it is

Youre not one of us
Not one of us
No youre not one of us
Not one of us
Not one of us
No youre not one of us

Theres safety in numbers
When you learn to divide
How can we be in
If there is no outside
All shades of opinion
Feed an open mind
But your values are twisted
Let us help you unwind
You may look like we do
Talk like we do
-but you know how it is

Youre not one of us
Not one of us
No youre not one of us
Youre not one of us
Not one of us
No youre not one of us

Not one of us
Youre not one of us
Not one of us
Youre not one of us
Not one of us
Youre not one of us
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1884 godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message
11/6/2007 6:16 PM Re: THERE IS NO MORE TIME (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?page=2&showdate=11/8/07&messageid=459073&mpage=1)

GOD- the mathematical Evidence
CALCULATIONS (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:1bFFqePBECsJ:www.jufo.freeserve.co. uk/God.html+gematria+1073&hl=nl&ct=clnk&cd=17&gl=nl)
Length of vesica piscis
The circumference of a single hydrogen atom = 3374 ( pi x 1074 = 3373.9989 )
Angle XCD equals tan-1( 510.86/165.5 ) = 72.0495680
One half of the length of vesica piscis arc =[ circumference of atom x 72.0495680/3600 ] = 1350.0287
Vesica piscis = 2701.0574 ( 2 x 1350.0287 )

Life we perceive on the material plane, depends upon the numbers 1, 27 and 37, which prevail in both as Hebrew gematria in the Bible and the Solar system.

Another number, 347, of similar meaning to 137, exists in our Solar system, the distance between Earth and Moon.
This number also depicts the components of light.
Numbers 137, 37, 347, and their reversed ones 731, 73 and 743 contain knowledge regarding the spiritual and material planes of existence.

Numerals such as:
3142, 31415 ( the digits of pi, symbol p, used in the geometry of circles and spheres ).
523 ( very closely approximates to pi/6 , used to find the volume of a sphere ).
3, 4, 5 ( the first set of a Pythagorean triad because 32 + 42 = 52 ).
12 ( the atomic number of magnesium ).
37 & 73 ( reflected or mirror image pair - 73 is the reflection of 37 ).
37 x 73 = 2701

Have been IMPRINTED in DIMENSIONS involving the SUN, EARTH & MOON and HYDROGEN.

Were they stamp marked by accident?
I think NOT!!
It is a signature of an INTELLIGENT AGENT.

There is a definite case for evidence of
an Architect of the Universe ( God, Creator, Intelligence )
when the simple numerical equivalents of the components of the solar system and atoms are considered, instead of their perceived measurements in whatever units ( miles, kilometres, nanometres etc ).

http://www.jufo.freeserve.co.uk/pi314.jpg
The components of pi, 3.1415 as well as the value 3142 (pi = 3.142), the digits 3, 4, 5 ( Pythagorean ) and 3 3 1 ( the hydrogen atom ) are easily discernible.

But how do we obtain the number values shown in the diagram?
By using the solar factor 72.
SEVENTY-TWO ( 72 ) is the factor, which converts mile measurements
in the micro- and macrocosms ( atoms, stars & planets )
into simple numbers.

SEVENTY-TWO ( 72 ) is the factor, which converts mile measurements
in the micro- and macrocosms ( atoms, stars & planets )
into ( divine ) simple numb

Let's consider the first 12 digits of pi, 314159265358.
It starts with the number 3, which is also the fadic value of 12 (1+2=3).
The divine numbers of the Moon and Sun are 3 and 12.

Excluding the 3, there remain 11 digits, and 11 is the Earth number.
These 11 digits, 1 4 1 5 9 2 6 5 3 5 8 can be expressed 'dropping' the 11 & 55 :
4 5 9 2 6 3 8 .........(1)
1 1 5 5 .........(2)

The values in line (2) correspond to Earth numbers, 11 its 'space' and 55 ( one half of 11 ) its 'time', as an object.
The digits in line (1) can be rearranged to 2 3 4 5 6 8 9.
Notice that 0 1 7 are missing.
Their sum 2+3+4+5+6+8+9, makes 37.

The numbers 017 and 37 prevail.

0 1 7 - meaning "NOTHING is ONE (EVERYTHING, itself also SEVEN, like the 7 spectral rays )."
3 7 - meaning "THREE primary rays ( red, green blue ) constitute INVISIBLE LIGHT, which also consists of SEVEN rays (of the spectrum) or (colours of the rainbow).

Numbers are (contain) Knowledge.
Is this the reason why so many people (are adversely influenced by forces 'unknown', to have such a dislike of maths?

The Holy Trinity, the three in one, the Greek Trident, can be expressed as "31" or even "13".
Recall that in the material world 13 is the distance between Sun and Earth, the Sun number is 12 ( the gematria of xf` , meaning "Sun", adds to 12 ).
Jesus selected 12 disciples constituting a total of 13 persons.
This symbolism is noticeable, centuries later, in "king Arthur and his 12 Knights of the Round Table".

It is not unexpected then to find in the Kabala that "El" l` meaning God adds to 31.

The gematria of "God of the Earth" from Genesis 24; 3 is 1073, so very close to the divine number of a single hydrogen atom (1074 = 1073 + Creator number 1 ).

The divine atomic and covalent diameters of hydrogen, the progenitor of all other atoms, are 1074 and 331.
Their digits add to 12 (3) [Sun, Moon] and 7 [ each atom ].

Astrophysicists inform us that hydrogen is the original matter of suns (stars), some of which at the end of their life, have been observed in the universe to spew out a concoction of additional new elements, like iron and carbon, at their collapse.
The sum of and differences between 1074 and 331 should convey knowledge.
The values are 1405, equivalent to 145 or 45, meaning spiritual vibration plus consciousness, the "human" entity, and 743, the converse of 347 ( Light ).

The fadic (reduced) values of 45 & 743 are 9 & 5.
Multiplied together make 45, the converse of which is 54.
This corresponds with relevant Hebrew text having a numerical value of 54, i.e. eiyrm ( 504 or 54 ) meaning "His works (God's creation)" and vi`dlj (54) "the whole earth".
The reflection of 1405 is 5041 or 71 x 71. ( 71 the reflection of 17, a correspondence with Light ).

According to American author, Bonnie Gaunt, the gematria of nidl`didl` meaning "the God of gods", adds to 137.

.....

1 divided by 27 equals 0 .037 37 37…

When 27 and 37 are multiplied together, the result is 999, the gematria of midl`ziy`xj, found in the first book in Genesis, which means "In the beginning Elohim".

Characteristic unique only to planet Earth.
http://www.jufo.freeserve.co.uk/g10.jpg
The numbers 72 and its "mirror" image 27 have a property, unique only to planet Earth.
0297 is the mirror image of the Earth's 7920 miles diameter.
When 7920 is divided by 72, and 0297 by 27, the result is the SAME. It is 11.

This property is only UNIQUE to EARTH.
"Two Earths" are implied, the material one of which we are all aware.
The spiritual one, perceivable by the lucky few.

Thus the UNIVERSE involved a DESIGNER.
An intelligent agent, our CREATOR, manifested HYDROGEN,
to be the PROGENITOR of ALL OTHER ATOMS,
from NOTHING,
by THOUGHT ( WORD or VIBRATION/FREQUENCY ), using
NUMERALS, as "LANGUAGE" in the BLUEPRINT. [/QUOTE]

michael_6

09-11-2007, 02:18 AM

Logic is only a part of understanding, without instinct and emotion we would be lesser creatures and would have neither art nor science, for many quantum leaps in technology have come about through intuition.

lemonique

09-11-2007, 03:50 AM

Hey everyone. I have recently come across a quote that goes:

Logic is in the eye of the logician.

I would really appreciate very deeply if people say whether they agree with this or not and why. This is really getting to me and I need some intelligent outlook on this.

So please feel free to express what you think. Much appreciated. I love you all.

:) :) :) :)

Yes, I suppose I can agree with that saying, especially as I believe that 'Love is in the eye of the beholder'.

The lovely Gloria Steinem has some great quotes..

www.brainyquotes.com

Cheers

chandrakavi

09-11-2007, 04:41 AM

"Logic believes in two categories: the known and the unknown. That which is unknown today will become known tomorrow. That which is known today was unknown yesterday. So there is not much difference between the known and the unknown; they belong to the same category. Logic does not believe in the unknowable---and the unknowable is the very heart of life, the very heartbeat of the universe.

I am not against logic. Use it--it is a beautiful strategy as far as the marketplace is concerned, the superficial world is concerned--but beware that you don't go on carrying it into deeper layers of life and experience. There it is a hindrance. Logic uses the mind and the mind is helpful in understanding the objective eworld, but it is a hindrance in understanding the subjective world, because the subjective world is beyond the mind, behind the mind. You can see your eyes to see others, but you can not use your eyes to see yourself. If you want to see yourself through your own eyes you have to use a mirror. To look in a mirror means you are creating a reflection of yourself, which is not you, certainly not you, but you can see the reflection. Logic can see only the reflected glory of existence; it cannot see existence itself because existence is far deeper than logical formulations."

OSHO
THE ABC OF ENLIGHTETNMENT
A SPIRITUAL DICTIONARY
FOR THE HERE AND NOW

edit

09-11-2007, 12:29 PM

Network
Inventions

Time Machine Invented
GLP News Network
8/9/2007 4:40 AM
Time Machine Invented (http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message422159/pg1)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q&eurl=http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message422159/pg1
Discovery - First Time Machine

them

09-11-2007, 01:57 PM

This will keep you busy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_theory

Connectivity in a system is a fundamental factor of graph theory.

http://www.dw-world.de/image/0,,1635708_1,00.jpg

Solutio problematis ad geometriam situs pertinentis (http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~euler/pages/E053.html)>>>link

e (the base of natural logarithms), p (the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle), i (Ö-1), 1, and 0. The equation itself (epi +1 = 0) can be understood in terms of a traditional mathematical proof, but that does not give one a sense of what it might mean. While one might intuit, given the significance of the elements of the equation, that there is a deeper meaning, one is not in a position to get at that meaning within the discipline of mathematics itself. It is only by going outside of mathematics and adopting the perspective of theology that any kind of understanding of the equation might be gained, the significant implication here being that the whole mathematical field might be a vast treasure house of insights into the mind of God. In this regard, the article is a response to the monograph by George Lakoff and Rafael Núñez, Where Mathematics Comes From: How the Embodied Mind Brings Mathematics into Being (2000), which attempts to approach mathematics in general and the Euler equation in particular in terms of some basic principles of cognitive psychology. It my position that while there may be an external basis for understanding mathematics, the results are somewhat disappointing and fail reveal the full measure of meaning buried within that equation.

??

http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/euler.gif
Leonhard

kblood

09-11-2007, 02:39 PM

In some ways this is true that logic is in the eyes of the logician. Once upon a time, it was logical that Earth was flat. Today statistics are used, and manipulated alot as well, to make the answers shown with graphs and statistical numbers, to make it seem logical, even though the numbers can be shown in many different ways. F.ex. showing how black people are less intelligent than white people, by comparing their grades in school. Factors like most black people having less money is not part of the statistic though.

Another statistic to give a wrong image is "only" 1% of the Co2 in our atmosphere is human made. If this 1% was instead shown as how many houses it could fill, I think the picture and the effect it would have on people seeing it would be quite different.

Also to some people logic is veiwed differently, and there are subjects where logic does not seem to apply at all. Take a scientist, a medium, a ecomist, a satanist and monk... I bet they would see things very differently, and would probably find many things they would not commonly find logical. Some scientific facts is as far as I know, breakable for some monks.