[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 14 KB, 323x250, 1548722678397.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13455604 No.13455604 [Reply] [Original]

>"Oh, you know, I only trust what I see"
>can't see the act of seeing
How can materialism recover ?

>> No.13455617
File: 74 KB, 805x960, received_252149875740117.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13455617

>>13455604
Based

>> No.13455622

>>13455617
WHAT DO THE DRAGONS REPRESENT?

>> No.13455653

>>13455604
>>13455617
holy based
reminder to fedoras, before they burst in ranting about "skydaddy"s, that abrahamic theism isn't the only alternative to materialism, and that materialism has not been (and cannot be) "proven by science."

>> No.13455815

>>13455653
actually based

>> No.13455820

>>13455604
Phenomenal post. I've seen it here before, it's the shortest, wittiest refutation of materialism I've so far encountered.

>>13455653
This.

>> No.13455849

>>13455622
spooks

>> No.13456730

>>13455604
>crosses my eyes
Checkmate Diogenes, or whoever is behind this post

>> No.13456737

>>13455604
>can't see the act of NOT-seeing either\
checkmate

>> No.13456739

>>13455622
muh dick

>> No.13456743

>>13455604
To only trust what is verifiable. But what is truly verifiable? What is the definition of verified? How is something considered true or false?

>> No.13456748
File: 431 KB, 640x478, 1551145526862.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13456748

>this thread

>> No.13456751
File: 240 KB, 1064x775, Capture13.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13456751

>>13455604
perfect

>> No.13456760

>>13455604
literally nobody has ever said that

>> No.13456761

>>13455604
the act of seeing is implied by the fact of seeing, and indeed no materialist uses this phrase in the literal sense.

>> No.13456769

>While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

>> No.13457932
File: 66 KB, 961x738, based.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13457932

>>13456730

>> No.13457959

>>13455604
>>13455617
based af
>>13455653
cringe

>> No.13457969

>>13456761
>>13456760
What do they use then besides their senses could it be Metaphysics anon?

>> No.13458057

>>13457969
Sensors. There are many things that cannot be seen but we can theorise about them and design things to detect them. We do not need metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

>> No.13458196

>>13455604
And what if we can see the act of seeing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLb9EIiSyG8

Whatever uncertainties may preside, the fact remains that physical empiricism makes actionable advancements in our knowledge while alternative epistemologies do not.

>> No.13458302

>>13458196
That's still not seeing the act of seeing.

>> No.13458334

>>13457959
t. Abrahamist

>> No.13458484

>>13458196
Seeing what is seen /= seeing the act of seeing.

None of the 5 senses can sense their own act. Only the intellect is reflexive (I can think the act of thinking), because it is immaterial.

>> No.13458580

>>13455604
>he can't see behind his eye with his mind's eye
Mindlet

>> No.13458700

>>13458484
So you claim, but you cannot establish any certainty that these measurable phenomena are not the act of seeing (apprehended with some imperfect degree of accuracy), nor that our experience is not continuous with a physical reality it is but an aspect of. You can't even define what it means for something to be 'immaterial'... It's like contrasting 'thing' with 'nothing'... There is no reason or indication to suppose that 'nothing' exists in any concrete sense. Your objection amounts to nothing more than posing an uncertainty, while posing no countervailing certainty or probability.

On the other hand, demonstrations such as this do support some degree of probability that a physicalist continuity is the case. In this example the visual feed simply exemplifies how mechanical the 'act of seeing' is, but this can of course be combined with data from fMRI, EEG, etc. to provide a more comprehensive picture of the 'act'.

No, you can't think the act of thinking; the act precedes your thoughts, control and awareness.

>> No.13459376

>>13458580
>he doesn't just process everything in his eye's mind
Eyelet

>> No.13459509

>>13455604
>"Oh, you know, I only trust what can be observed."
>cAn yOu oBsErVe ThE aCt Of ObSeRvInG???
>"Yes actually. That's how science works, repeatable verifiable evidence for a hypothesis."

OP BTFO

>> No.13459537

>>13459509
But, anon! Repetition only leads to a statistic!

>> No.13459938

>>13459537
absolutely based

>> No.13459983
File: 64 KB, 541x458, received_365242864068552.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13459983

>>13458057
>theorize
>materialist

>> No.13460002

>>13458057
>There are many things that cannot be seen but we can theorise about them and design things to detect them.
How do you do that based on your senses?
There is no sense telling you that tomorrow the same laws of physics apply, so how can you theorize about ANYTHING?

>> No.13460016

>>13455617
Again, replace epistemology, philosophy and ontology by mathematics to make the picture true.

>> No.13460022

>>13460016
Math needs logic to make it work and ontology precedes logic so. Also science is positive empiricism and it's not just a branch of math

>> No.13460033

>>13455604
>know materialism is probably right
>still be a contrarian because muh autistic logic

>> No.13460065

>>13459509
Nah, science tests for regularity in observations, it doesn't provide a reflexive account of observation itself.

>>13460033
you have much to learn

>> No.13460152

>>13460022
>Math needs logic to make it work
Logic is a subset of mathematics, but sure.

>Also science is positive empiricism and it's not just a branch of math
Where did I claim that?

>> No.13460700
File: 16 KB, 400x267, young-horrified-woman-closing-her-mouth-hands-24258018.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13460700

>>13460002
jesus fuck
this fucking thread

>> No.13461191

This thread in a nutshell
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8ffw5LtzQ

>> No.13461436

>>13460152
>logic is a subset of mathematics
No, the other anon was right the first time. Set theory is logic. This is what both Aristotelian categorical logic (informally) and modern propositional logic (more more explicitly) rely on: sets. When you say "a is F" you partly mean that a is among the constituents of the extension of F. When you say all As are Bs you mean that the extension of A is included in the extension of B (literally a subset). And to derive arithmetic, by first constructing the ordinals either the von Neumann or Zermelo way, you're going to have sets within sets either way.

>> No.13461448

>>13461436
Isn't math an abstract system which uses logic?
im beyond brainlet on these matters but I thought that was how everyone viewed that relation

>> No.13462124

>>13455604
based

>> No.13462149

>>13461448
I'm not sure if you know what you said or he said but
>Isn't math an abstract system which uses logic?
Is what he just explained was true.
Ontology > logic > math
You can partially represent logic w math but not entirely and you can't represent math without logic.

>> No.13462160

>>13462149
That is what I was trying to say. Though I dont know about putting ontology above logic. Logic seems totally ineffable to me, like these random rules we can't explain and we can't justify them without using logic itself, and Ontology always makes use of logic to argue its case.

>> No.13462166

>>13461448
The difference is what this anon said >>13460152
Is Isn't logic an abstract system which uses math?

>> No.13462181

Materialism is the only rational metaphysical position.

>> No.13462184

>>13462160
Just because we haven't found a language to test and use ontology qua ontology doesn't mean it isn't prior (or doesn't exist).
Ontology is the state of being, logic can represent ontology through law of non contradiction, just as math can represent logic in a limited way.
An analogy is how science necessitates philosophy to explain itself (use of objective or subjective) and philosophy is preceded by mysticism which really isn't well understood. The best we can try and do rn is develop a metaphysical structure for mysticism but it by nature is only a part of it

>> No.13462187

>>13462181
>using Metaphysics to deny Metaphysics
Very rational cuck

>> No.13462193

>>13462187
materialism is metaphysics, faggot

>> No.13462208

>>13462181
In what way?

>> No.13462212

>>13462193
It is a type of Metaphysics that rejects Metaphysics. Metaphysics precedes physics. It's basically a monist hierarchy with Metaphysics higher up as the analytic statement of the synthetic statement of physics and something else. Physics is farther away from Metaphysics and seeks to go farther yet, as a stubborn child denies God, it is by Metaphysics through which physics may exist.
Materialism is not Metaphysics it is a type of Metaphysics that is in the direction going lower down the hierarchy to eventually deny Metaphysics entirely as well as life and God itself

I don't get it are u a guy or a 40 yo lesbo, you don't make any damned sense

>> No.13462221

>>13462193
If materialism was Metaphysics how does it deal with Metaphysics being immaterial and in form?

>> No.13462235

>>13462212
lmao nice ideology there

Definition of metaphysics

1a(1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology metaphysics … analyzes the generic traits manifested by existences of any kind— J. H. Randall
(2) : ontology sense 2
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience steered philosophy away from metaphysics and toward the disciplines of natural science and linguistics — Time

>> No.13462247

>>13462221
metaphysics isn't immaterial, it's just the study of the fundamental nature of reality outside of direct observation. Materialism states that there is no supernatural realm of existence, and and all phenomenon can be explained through natural processes

>> No.13462325

>>13462235
Yeah it's kant and hegel fused but it's a good representation of Metaphysics. Plato even had a hierarchy to his world of forms but you must think goodness is hierarchical superior, in an objective way, to justice. You can't be judicial without trying to be good. The issue is that justice is a deviation from goodness and can be more corrupted than good (for instance you can use justice to try to be good by vanquishing evil which is less good yet still judicial). Towards more applicable subjects ontology > logic > math. Those are immaterial subjects yet are undoubtedly hierarchized and real.

>>13462247
Really explain justice in a material sense

>> No.13462373

>>13458700
>No, you can't think the act of thinking; the act precedes your thoughts, control and awareness.
Yet you're thinking about it right there, despite your primitive intuitions about precedence.

>> No.13462377

>>13455622
Deleuze

>> No.13462427

>>13455622
faith, capitalism or fascism

>> No.13462471

>>13462373
No, I wasn't. I was thinking about the effects of an act which I have no conscious awareness of. To think about the act of thinking in an elucidating manner would require being acquainted with details of the phenomenon -- an aquaintance that can only be facilitated by apprehending information via the senses. As an aside, if you'd had any success with meditation you'd know that lack of reflection reveals more about the nature of thought than reflexive scrutiny.

>> No.13462517

>>13462235
A poor term to be honest. The etymology of the word implies the existence of something other than the physical (an implication which lacks any supportive indications whatsoever). In practice, the term is frequently wielded to assert the validity of the aforementioned implication (without substantive argument) and is only rarely employed with the appropriate neutrality.

It would be clearer to just group all study of existence under the umbrella of 'ontology', instead of implying/presupposing (even unintentionally) some kind of duality whereby any relations or aspects of existence can circumscribe the substance of existence.

>> No.13462582

>>13462517
Yeah, I agree. I've made a similar point in a past thread.

>> No.13462590

>>13462325
Justice is a concept, imagined in the brains of men.

>> No.13462625

>>13460022
>>13460152
In reality it should be science & mathematics with everything else remaining as it is. Don't think your precious mathematics isn't on the same level. Although a more accurate picture would be some of science being based on mathematics and some not, again all the rest the same. Mathematics is even more assumptive than nonmathsbased science, and the science that is based atop it tends towards the same conclusions and thinking brought about by those assumptions which I bet makes you think 'wow mathematics is clearly true!'. i don't get what nerds are on about when they say philosophy is baseless, maths and science are ever more so. if anything you could argue their basis is tied to whatever produces material benefit for war and economy, the fruits of them rather than any actual basis.

>> No.13462654

>>13462471
>As an aside, if you'd had any success with meditation you'd know that lack of reflection reveals more about the nature of thought than reflexive scrutiny.
Even if it's nonverbal it's still thinking. Thanks to meditation I know that acquiring any type of knowledge related to senses cannot arise without mediation of information. Bare knowing that we are conscious is information itself.

>> No.13462663

>>13462625
Agreed

>>13462590
You're an absolutely stupid child I'll reply in the other thread

>> No.13462671
File: 48 KB, 640x830, smoke.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13462671

>materialists deny things like god, objective reality and the ether because "they can't be proven to exist"
>pop sci and the highest echelons of quantum physics is filled hare brained fools that constantly theorize a whole cosmology of invisible particles
>the particles themselves are virtual, only work because they fit their particular equations, and have never been the input or output of any observed experiment
>they can only be described to exist by using mathematics, and when the equations fail the whole thing goes out the window
>materialists also love theorizing about alienz, rick and morty dimensions where everything is the same but hitler won ww2 and unicorn farts are used as a drug

it really is sad to be one of you guys

>> No.13462764

>>13462663
You anger betrays your ignorance.

>> No.13463533

>>13462654
No, it isn't. Meditative success results when thought of all kinds is quieted, when experience is limited to sensory apprehension and inputs are not reflected upon. If you're arguing that sensory apprehension bleeds into edges of what can be considered 'thought' I'd agree, but that doesn't support the notion that thinking is 'immaterial' or has some ill-defined property of 'reflexiveness' that makes it discrete from the senses. Is sensory apprehension itself not also mediation of information?

>> No.13463549

>>13462764
>anger = ignorance
>rational
I'm not angry you're just impressively incapable of learning and can only spout modern day garbage w no engagement w ur own ideas

>> No.13463563
File: 62 KB, 500x375, cryharder.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13463563

>>13462671
Awww whats wrong? Are you sad that there aren't any spoopy ghosts and you won't be going to the good place when you go bye bye? Are you having a bad time with reality?

>> No.13463576

>>13461436
>Set theory is logic.
No.

>This is what both Aristotelian categorical logic (informally) and modern propositional logic (more more explicitly) rely on: sets.
NO!

>When you say "a is F" you partly mean that a is among the constituents of the extension of F. When you say all As are Bs you mean that the extension of A is included in the extension of B (literally a subset).
It's EXACTLY the other way around. Logic comes before set theory. And that you don't know this should disqualify you from any discussion on the topic you absolute retard.

>by first constructing the ordinals either the von Neumann or Zermelo way
You are enormously retarded and have NO clue what you are talking about.
No, Zermelo didn't "Construct" the natural numbers, THE FUCKING POINT is that it is NOT CONSTRUCTIVE BUT AXIOMATIC.

>> No.13463585

>>13463549
Unlike you, I didn't stop at Aristotle and say fuck it. I kept reading, something you should do.

>> No.13463607

>>13463576
He was saying math is set theory and that set theory was a form of logic. He pointed out specific examples where set theory was the form of logic of some logicians.
>not constructive but axiomatic
I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive

>> No.13463628

>>13463585
Nobody has said anything aristotelian child. You don't seem to have replied but if justice only appears in man's brain then why do we pretend to have a functional justice system? Since justice is subjective, we could only be more damaging by having an institution so wildly off base w reality. How do you have a justice system when it is subjective?

>> No.13463647

>>13463607
>He was saying math is set theory
That is false.

>that set theory was a form of logic.
That is also totally false.

>He pointed out specific examples where set theory was the form of logic of some logicians.
The direction is REVERSED. Set theory is DEFINED through logic.

>I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive
Then you have a serious lack of knowledge about mathematics, especially it's foundations and I suggest you read up on the difference before participating in a discussion about it.
But even then the Peano axioms (that was surely what he meant) are NOT constructive.

>> No.13463729

>>13463628
>Nobody has said anything aristotelian child.
>child
Cringe. Your brand of metaphysics is very reminiscent of Aristotle. But you didn't read him, did you?
>Why do we pretend to have a functional justice system?
We don't pretend. The justice system is very real. Various actors take their concept of justice and impose it on the world.
>How do you have a justice system when it is subjective?
Our entire reality is experienced subjectively. There is no preferred reference frame for existence, and neither the different arbitration of it we have created. We don't have justice because the universe ordained it. There are many others reasons one could postulate. For instance (not saying I necessarily agree), we have a justice system because it is useful for the state. The state has it's own conception of justice, and uses violence to form others into its framework. Justice can mean many different things. Justice being subjective is the reason we have a justice system. If it wasn't, there would be no need for interpretation, persuasion and coercion.

>> No.13463734

>>13463729
Only, all of that is utter bullshit. Of course justice is subjective or some shit. This is just stating the obvious, you fucking retard. I have followed your posts for some time now, and you just post the same fucking platitudes over and over again. Retard.

>> No.13463753

>>13463647
>set theory is defined through logic
That is exactly what the sentence you're quoting says

>> No.13463766

>>13463753
No ABSOLUTELY not.
"set theory was the form of logic" set theory is NOT a form of logic, it is something DEFINED through logic, logic exists PRIOR to set theory, you can't do set theory without having logic.
Seriously what you wrote was moronic beyond belief, but this is just absolutely retarded.

>> No.13463775
File: 64 KB, 960x932, 1554653871379.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13463775

imagine thinking that there is thinking without material stuff to enable thinking in itself.

>> No.13463780

>>13463729
Maybe you think I'm another anon, Aristotle didn't hierarchize the sciences and certainly not his own.
>various actors impose it on others
So justice is subjective yet it can have manipulation on humans like it is real?
No our entire reality is experienced relatively. You can't make the laws of logic become abstract things, or physical objects become things like nothingness, or things we can't even dream of.
>justice system exists because it's subjective
Math is objective yet we maintain a system and education system on it. Your analogies are barren and retarded. Justice exists as ethics has an objective existence yet humans can only understand it relatively. In fact, if it was actually subjective, nothing would ever progress. We'd be stuck on 1+1 = whatever and could never reach calculus or even algebra or multiplication perhaps.

>> No.13463787

>>13463766
No you're just incapable of reading and are having an aneurysm. A form of x is y. Y is necessarily a subset of x. Set theory is a form of logic makes set theory a subset of logic, by definition that sentence can't be read any other objective way

>> No.13463801

>>13463787
I'll rewrite this actually. Mcchicken is a product of McDonald's.
>you
Are you saying mcchickens are McDonald's? Or that mcchickens precede McDonald's?

>>13463775
And yet, at that moment, they had realized they must sacrifice a purely material world for a compatible one in which there may be a hierarchy between the two.
Honestly shit take, there's no way to construct the early universe without it having form and measurement, immaterial things. The best you can hope for is that they started to exist at the same time but that seems childish.

>> No.13463824

>>13463787
>Set theory is a form of logic
NO.
That's like saying graph theory is a fork of logic. You are retarded.

>set theory a subset of logic
It is NOT.
It is DEFINED through logic.
Calculus is not a subset of logic either.

>A form of x is y. Y is necessarily a subset of x.
That is the dumbest thing I read all day, you have NO clue what you are talking about...

>> No.13463829

>>13463801
>I'll rewrite this actually. Mcchicken is a product of McDonald's.
>>you
>Are you saying mcchickens are McDonald's? Or that mcchickens precede McDonald's?
None of that makes any sense.
Your analogy is beyond retarded and fails to capture the issue entirely.

Set theory is defined through logic, it is neither a part of it not is set theory used as a form of logic, anyone with a passing knowledge of these subjects should know that.

>> No.13463831

>>13455622
Sneed and Chuck

>> No.13463863

>>13463829
So how does that look then, it uses logic but it's not a part of it? Are you a pluralist that assumes only overlap exists and deny foundations entirely?

>> No.13463883

>>13463863
>it uses logic but it's not a part of it?
Yes. Calculus is defined through logic, but isn't logic.
That seems like a pretty sane position that is very hard to disagree with.

>Are you a pluralist that assumes only overlap exists and deny foundations entirely?
No, I just believe that you can distinguish logic and things that are the result of logic.

Again, you just seem to be entirely out of your waters, this is pretty basic stuff.

>> No.13463908
File: 40 KB, 320x320, 1507952444924.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13463908

>>13463824
i just scrolled to the bottom of the thread and i didn't read your post, but people who randomly type in caps in the middle of a sentence for emphasis are always retarded. always. i don't even need to read what you wrote or the reply chain to know that you're the one who's wrong and that you desperately feel the need to appear right.

>> No.13463929

>>13463908
And why do should I care what you think?

>> No.13463948

>>13463801
I challenge your presumption that it cannot be purely material world. The ideas and so on are inherently materialistic phenomena. The meanings that we assign to these material phenomena are just material configurations of our brain. Why do you insist that there must be something that isn't something?

You're a child who can't accept the real.

>> No.13463957

>>13463929
because i want you to know that you look like a giant asshole, and that maybe if you deflated your ego, you could focus on arriving at truthful conclusions rather trying to make yourself look smart.

>> No.13463961

>>13463957
>because i want you to know
That is NOT a reason why I should CARE.

>> No.13463984

>>13463948
If that were true then that means nothing exists prior to living beings. Do you deny the big bang, evolution and knowledge prior to living grasping it?
Cognition is a horrible argument for materialism.

>> No.13464008

>>13463883
If it's resulted from logic it is a part of logic you moron.
x+y=z z is necessarily the parts x and y.

>I made tacos with meat and corn tortillas
>you can't say tacos come from meat and corn tortillas just because it's made from them, they're totally separate pieces.

You're espousing a pluralism and you're not explaining your position (or proving it). There is absolutely no way something can be created from something and that item not be necessarily prior to it. Nothing in any branch of knowledge confirms this.

>> No.13464035

>>13464008
>If it's resulted from logic it is a part of logic
That's absurd.

>x+y=z z is necessarily the parts x and y.
There is something missing in that sentence, no clue what you are trying to say.

>>you can't say tacos come from meat and corn tortillas
The literal opposite us what I said.
I just said that tacos aren't a part of meat and corn tortillas.

>There is absolutely no way something can be created from something and that item not be necessarily prior to it.
Logic is derived from set theory and obviously prior to it, I said that about ten times already.

>> No.13464070

>>13464035
If it's prior to it then that means set theory is a part of logic.

>> No.13464073

>>13464070
>If it's prior to it then that means set theory is a part of logic.
That's RETARDED and makes distinctions between things basically impossible.
Calling Calculus a part of logic is an absurd way if thinking about mathematics.

>> No.13464074

>>13464070
Again you can't have meat and corn tortillas be a part of tacos and then assume you can make that taco without first preparing meat and corn tortillas

>> No.13464085

>>13464073
Well you could say logic plus x (perhaps pluralistic numbers) in fact you can throw in any number of variables. But you can't have calculus without logic much like you can't have that specific taco without meat. It is prior to and a part of the, new, whole.

>> No.13464095

>>13464085
That is not an argument.
Calling Calculus a part of logic is absurd, it makes talking about things impossible.
Just like considering a Taco as a part of "meat" makes talking about meat impossible.

>> No.13464112

>>13464095
What about part is the issue, would you consider it still an issue if it was called a product of logic?

>> No.13464118

>>13463984
The conclusion is precisely the opposite. If abstractions themselves are physical phenomena, then things like 'measurement' are physical processes in all respects and possess no immaterial component. Abstractions obviously can't precede beings with the capacity to abstract, but events like the big bang and evolution have no such prerequisite and so obviously can (you've made a glaring category error).

>> No.13464121

>>13464112
>What about part is the issue, would you consider it still an issue
That it makes distinction impossible.

>would you consider it still an issue if it was called a product of logic?
That essentially changes it meaning, to something equivalent to "defined through".

>> No.13464148

>>13464121
That still makes set theory a form of logic much like a taco is a form of meat (and whatever else variables)

You're the one who redefined form as part, I didn't do that. Saying something has parts doesn't mean I'm saying it is a part of it. You've reworded everything into something ridiculous and that only lays in your head.

X + Y = Z
Z is a product (or form) of X and Y, do you disagree?

>> No.13464155

>>13464121
I cann see why you're arrogant you're incapable of following a conversation past your pre conceived notions. I at no point implied or said calculus was a part of logic, I said logic precedes and is hierarchical prior to it and you can't have set theory be prior to logic and the person you were attacking originally said the same God damned thing.

>> No.13464161

>>13464148
Also let's define form, a form is something like h2o, which can take the form of water, ice and vapor despiyeubeing h2o. This means forms are necessarily parts. So if logic, in some way, can be represented through calculus, or set theory, the set theory is necessarily a form of logic.

>> No.13464170

>>13464148
>taco is a form of meat
That is so self evidently false that I rest my case.

>> No.13464174

>>13464170
A taco is a form of meat (and corn tortillas) much like ice is a form of water and cold temperatures.

That is so evidently true I rest my case.

>> No.13464176

>>13464155
>I at no point implied or said calculus was a part of logic
But you said set theory is a part of logic, clearly then calculus is a part of set theory too.

>> No.13464189

>>13464176
I said that as in they're connected not as in set theory was resulted from and results as well to logic. If that were true, you implied I meant the second, then that would mean I'd be saying calculus is prior to logic which is exactly the opposite of what I argued. You're a disingenuous moron.

>> No.13464208

>>13464174
Set theory is a form of logic (and whatever other else variables). This is ridiculously true in the same way 1+1 is the form of 2.
Even better
2+2 is the form of 4
4 is the form of 2×2
Therefore 2+2 is the form of 2×2, it holds up in every branch of knowledge.