Join 82,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Info High IQ info

World is full of contradiction. You are taking into consideration that the existence of contradiction implies that something cant be useful.

Lets take for example that philosophically 0,9999... is something differently from 1.
However, mathematically, 0,999999..... = 1.









x=0,9‾...

10x=9,9...

10x−x=9,9...−0,9....

9x=9

x=9/9=1

x=1 & x= 0,999....
Apart from that mathematical case, i would also like to remind you of the classical problem of the first cause behind the existence of the universe, which is also a contradiction of reality.


Reality is not obliged to be logical or rational.
@Genetics
 
World is full of contradiction. You are taking into consideration that the existence of contradiction implies that something cant be useful.

Lets take for example that philosophically 0,9999... is something differently from 1.
However, mathematically, 0,999999..... = 1.









x=0,9‾...

10x=9,9...

10x−x=9,9...−0,9....

9x=9

x=9/9=1

x=1 & x= 0,999....
That’s not a contradiction it’s an identity. 0.999… = 1 because the system of real numbers is consistent. You’re proving the opposite of your point logic resolves what looks like a contradiction into coherence.
 
That’s not a contradiction it’s an identity. 0.999… = 1 because the system of real numbers is consistent. You’re proving the opposite of your point logic resolves what looks like a contradiction into coherence.
Contradictions in reality can be perceived as coherence if a model is adjusted to take the contradiction as part of reality instead of a flaw in it.

Said that, under the previous named meaning of logic, mathematical logic contradicts multiple other philosophical logics which states that 0,9... is not 1.

And you didn't spoke of the first motor problem
 
Contradictions in reality can be perceived as coherence if a model is adjusted to take the contradiction as part of reality instead of a flaw in it.

Said that, under the previous named meaning of logic, mathematical logic contradicts multiple other philosophical logics which states that 0,9... is not 1.

And you didn't spoke of the first motor problem
As for the first motor, that’s a separate metaphysical debate. My point about logic’s utility still stands logical coherence is required to even discuss or model reality consistently. Without it, everything becomes purely subjective.
 
As for the first motor, that’s a separate metaphysical debate. My point about logic’s utility still stands logical coherence is required to even discuss or model reality consistently. Without it, everything becomes purely subjective.
but we already made it clear that our meaning of logic is not the same, you even commented it
 
but we already made it clear that our meaning of logic is not the same, you even commented it
Even with your definition, usefulness still needs consistency. Without it, a model can’t reliably serve reality.
 
Even with your definition, usefulness still needs consistency. Without it, a model can’t reliably serve reality.
Yes yes yes, it needs consistence exclusively on where it is specifically useful or none at all (like in religious models which serve another societal manipulation for example, or even some discussions on Law)
 
Yes yes yes, it needs consistence exclusively on where it is specifically useful or none at all (like in religious models which serve another societal manipulation for example, or even some discussions on Law)
So yes models can serve a purpose, but only if they’re coherent. Without that, usefulness is meaningless.
 
"Reality is not obliged to be logical or rational"

I agree. Nothing is certain. Also why it's useless to ponder. Just do da drugs and forget about life. Just popped my evening xanaxxxxx AHHHHH

Bout to fill those lungs widdd ganja in a second, and tomorrow is cocaine day!
 
So yes models can serve a purpose, but only if they’re coherent. Without that, usefulness is meaningless.
not necessarily, because it can have the incorrect understating and calculation but still produce the right result for a limited amount of circumstances. It can even be extremely incoherent (like religious texts)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top