Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Topic: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems (Read 72567 times)

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #250 – 2015-11-22, 05:56:17

I think the word you're looking for is ennui… The perfect motivation, for a nihilist.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #251 – 2015-11-22, 11:45:36

No, no, I'm no Nihilist. At all.
Such ennui is the certain result of assisting to European's decadence under the emerging of total emptiness.
Post Modernism is the nec plus ultra of Nihilism.

We'll turn nothing but a vague and indistinct memory of past times of glory and grandeur. Probably considered guilty by the New History insects.

Who cares...

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #252 – 2015-11-24, 06:09:08

My nostalgia makes me care, Belfrager… And my optimism, blunted and buffeted as it has been: The civilization from which my country spawned is not one I'd like to see submerged in the muck, and asphyxiated…

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #253 – 2015-11-26, 00:28:11

Since we still live in a civilized way, (I don't know for how long) have a drink...

Cheers

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #254 – 2015-12-01, 07:17:16

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-11-25, 16:28:11

Since we still live in a civilized way, (I don't know for how long) have a drink...

Wine takes too long (and whiskey too short) a time, so I drink

and go on, day after day.

Logic tells us what we should believe.
Experience confutes it, often as not.
Science is a method and a knot
to be untied, by the ancient sieve

of truth. So:
What do we hold to, and have to hold to?
What works! Silly as it seems, that's it;
what works allows us to nearly fit
reality, and our perceptions. You

would be hard pressed to find another
criterion that would do as well.
Of course, most wouldn't and few would tell
us anything, except what our mother

taught us: Milk is sweet; or sour. Knowing
which, we learn where we are going…
And Truth? Not that. No.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #255 – 2015-12-02, 23:54:19

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-12-01, 07:17:16

Wine takes too long (and whiskey too short) a time, so I drink and go on, day after day.

It explains it all...
Between tantra sex and precoce ejaculation you prefer to turn impotent...

Philosophically of course.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #256 – 2024-01-13, 15:05:17

This video is a review and critique of Misali's seximal system, which according to Misali is the best way to count. The video argues that the binary system is far better. After watching it, I am convinced.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDDaEVcwIJM

What I find most impressive about the video is that it even makes the binary system palatable as a human-language system (Chapter 6 at 1:00:15). However, at this point I slightly disagree because I got inspired to invent a slightly modified system that would work better in my opinion, even though my system would not match the notation as neatly as the system proposed in the video. I will probably spend the weekend testing my system out.

Arithmetic never was my strong suit. This is exactly why I went to work at a bank: I heard they have computers for counting so that I don't have to do any of it. Unfortunately we are in civilisational decline and crappy Microsoft products are increasingly not up to the simple tasks of counting and computing. A few years ago I had to buy a soroban to physically start practising arithmetic in order to be able to get work done.

By the way, soroban computing is a fantastic skill to possess. It can be easily adapted to any base.

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #257 – 2024-01-14, 11:27:49

Quote from: ersi on 2024-01-13, 07:05:17

Arithmetic never was my strong suit.

Nor was logic, despite your pretensions!

There's much to be said in favor of the logistic thesis — but nothing that requires or forbids the grade-school learning of abilities, such as basic arithmetic! If you have difficulties with such, it's a matter of memory and apperception... Since you claim to be a philosopher of sorts, shouldn't you recognize and explicate your weird reasoning for rejecting modern logic?

Choosing a base for arithmetic is trivially inconsequential. Unless one is -shall we say- idiosyncratic? (I mean, of course, idiopathic!)

I'd not have commented here but for your recent post! But dear ersi I stand by my inane verse!

But you've given me yet another chance to post this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6OaYPVueW4

I'd agree that one needn't be a wiz at arithmetic to deal with dollars and cents. But innumeracy is indeed a debilitation...

Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems

Reply #258 – 2024-01-14, 13:20:40

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2024-01-14, 11:27:49

such as basic arithmetic! If you have difficulties with such, it's a matter of memory and apperception...

I passed, so I did not have difficulties to any significant degree. And I may be underestimating myself, since I am comparing myself to my primary school deskmate who was the school primus, particularly in arithmetic, being able to calculate large numbers in his head and even play blind chess.

Anyway, there are several areas in math, arithmetic being one, geometry being another. I was excellent in geometry.