Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Advanced search

1072617 Posts in 71134 Topics- by 18853 Members - Latest Member: UtahTrombone
Jump to:  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 120
1  Practice Break / Purely Politics / Re: Our unbalanced POTUS on: Yesterday at 08:35 PM
I heard through breaking news on the CBC less than a hour ago that Trump is having his lawyers check into whether or not he has the right to pardon himself and his family WRT the Russia probe.

From the WaPo


Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump’s lawyers have been discussing the president’s pardoning powers among themselves.
2  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Yesterday at 08:27 PM
If logic is so good, how come I can't use it with my wife?
You know, I took 3 years of logic at university and it was the only class I took which had no women in it.  No joke.
3  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Yesterday at 11:52 AM
A perfect system created by imperfect beings... I'll believe it when I see it, though I'm not sure I'd be able to recognize it's perfection. :-P
Perfect!? Who said anything about perfect?  It's provably consistent, and that's all it needs to be.

So, in the case of first-order logic, I think the case can be made that it being consistent meets at least one dictionary definition of being perfect: "having all the required or desirable elements, qualities, or characteristics"
4  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Yesterday at 08:37 AM
Ah come on. You hear it all the time by people that are not exactly what you would call religious.  Evil
I suppose, but then it would just be an interjection.  Do religious people really use it to get God's attention or to refer to God?
5  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Yesterday at 08:19 AM
It's unfortunate for those who believe in scientism.
I always thought sicentism referred to the attempt to use hard science in such things as sociology, demography, geography, proving genesis is history and such.  Or calling geology a science, or the ridiculous term 'political science'. Why would people that inappropriately try to apply hard science find it unfortunate that they can't know everything?
6  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Yesterday at 08:02 AM
What God do people refer to when they exclaim "Oh God!"  Eeek!
Their god?  Don't really know as I don't use the expression.  I use a different oath.
7  Horns, Gear, and Equipment / Repairs, Modifications and Maintenance / Re: Slide issue on: Yesterday at 07:57 AM
I had an old Bundy that behaved like that.  It turned out to be build-up of old slide cream at the bottom of the outers near the crook and/or soft corrosion.  A tech gave it a ultrasonic chem-clean and it was right as rain after that.

I guess one previous owner never swabbed the thing out and just kept re-applying cream. Don't know
8  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Yesterday at 07:45 AM
That reminds me of Gödel's incompleteness theorems
I guess it does in a way.

When I first heard of Godel's I went to one of my first year maths professors and asked "Why did nobody tell us about this?".  He just laughed and told me that, although intriguing, they had little consequence.  They do seem rather damning at first glance, but he suggested that I consider that the axiomatic system must be consistent as a condition.  In other words, completeness is not an issue except to one or two esoteric theories.

After spending a lot more time studying mathematics I came to realize this.  Consistency of a system is paramount.  Completeness is a 'nothing burger'.

Russel's paradox actually has applications, especially in computing.  We learned this the hard way at a company I used to work at.  We had a piece of security software that granted people access based on their inclusion in a group (or set).  The administrator would create a empty set, give it rights, then add users.  Well, one clever guy decided that he'd create a master set that would contain all the other sets so that, during maintenance he could temporarily shut down access to everyone with a single 'click'.  Nice idea.  He created the group, assigned it all rights, then to populate it he did a 'select all' and clicked 'Apply'.  In less than a minute the entire Canadian federal government IT infrastructure shut down.

His mistake?  He forgot to remove the super-group from the selection and ended up with a set of all sets that contained itself.  As soon as someone tried to log in, the security system went into a recursion loop and folded like a cheap suit.  Real-time proof of Russel's Paradox.
9  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Yesterday at 07:26 AM
First rule of programming... there is no program that is bug free. And yes, it is pure logic. Still faulty.
Nope. I simply say that the only reason it seems so simple or straightforward is a large amount of assumptions in place to support it.
Tell that to the catholic church. They have a tremendous library filled with writings and teachings that do JUST that. They are also the ones that largely kept literacy and logic alive through the millennium. That you don't seem to think it works would be a fault in your logic, not theirs.

Thing is, and the point of this, logic varies from person to person. To use code as an example again, two programmers might code the same page that does the same things... but they will assuredly build it very different ways. You start with the assumption that you need to be able to recreate or walk through an idea to give it merit. Some of these things... are laughable (from that perspective). There is a model for the big bang. We can't verify it or walk through it at all to see if it's correct and works, but at least you can do the math. Get that warm and fuzzy. But otherwise, you likely accept things that are only partially understood or tested saying... well, I or someone else can go back and correct it if wrong.

The major limitation of that approach is you. Nothing can ever be greater than you understand. And again, towards this end, people use logic to come to incorrect conclusions far more than correct ones.

The religious logic follows a similar path, but does not put the person at the highest point. They are still operating on assumptions that are fuzzy... can't define God, but sense enough to know He's there... But God is the highest point, not the person. And if the person is wrong, the person simply needs to adjust to what is. Similar mechanism in play, but with more focus on that there are and will be errors, and to proceed with humility. Because regardless of how we think of it, the world is what it is... And often, rather than think and speak and construct... it's better to listen and observe.
Okay, I think I get where we're not seeing eye to eye.  You are talking about the execution of logic.  How people use, or rather misuse it.  I'm not.  I'm talking about logic as an axiomatic system.

Fair enough.  Then I'll concede that more often than not, people's use of logic if flawed.
10  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: TTF "Read Da Book": The Christian Bible on: Jul 19, 2017, 09:26PM
I can empathize.  My right eye has been technically blind for some time, so I have an idea what your going through WRT the vision problems.

Rest, take it easy and stay away from those books for a while!!!  I know how hard that can be.

I have some concern as to the cause.  Let us know, if you wish, as to your progress.
11  Horns, Gear, and Equipment / Instruments / Re: Breaking in a new slide on: Jul 19, 2017, 09:19PM
And don't worry too much about it.  The advice so far is sound but you should not have to do anything special after a week or two.  Modern slides from reputable manufacturers are pretty good and don't require a lot of break-in.

The last trombone I bought (a few weeks back) did not seem to require any break-in.  I wiped the inners daily, but no residue was found and it was as slick as a greased pig out of the case..
12  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 06:12PM
Again... assumptions abound. You just take them for granted.
Like I said before the devil is in the operands.  And, like I said before the value of the operands must be properly determined.  The logic does not care (and I think I said that before too...).

Do you know digital electronics at all?  That is pure logic.  So, assuming you do, do you blame a 2 input AND gate for giving wrong results if the data on the inputs is wrong?  The 2 input AND gate is exactly that little logic statement I made:

If A and B, then C.

The 'A' and 'B' be must be properly valuated in order to get 'C' when you expect it.  However 'A', 'B' and 'C' are not logic.  They are operands, or augments, or data which are passed to, or returned by the logic.

Anyway, this whole side-line on logic has run it's course.  No need to continue it.  God and logic don't mix.
13  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 06:03PM
You say you don't like the idea of God because you don't like the thought of being judged. Does that not indicate - logically - that the problem is more with you and how you think of yourself, than anything having to do with God? So then... what does that have to do with God? Sounds like being personally ashamed of oneself, which is the very definition of a personal problem.
I think you've mistaken the cause and effect of what I said.
14  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 05:58PM
How do you know the cat is hungry?
You don't - it doesn't matter.  Again, your fussing over the operands.  The logic does not care about the operands.
15  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 01:43PM
Feeling good is a quick calculation on a number of different systems on different levels. Emotionally, physically, across the body, and potentially even including the environment.
Love is a complex emotional response based on a number of feedback points.
These things themselves are very rapid and complex processing... not simply a state of being.
Emotions are more functional/mathematical operations rather than logical operations.  You don't think about them, they are a response.
16  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 01:38PM
Not at all.

Feeling good is a quick calculation on a number of different systems on different levels. Emotionally, physically, across the body, and potentially even including the environment.
Love is a complex emotional response based on a number of feedback points.
These things themselves are very rapid and complex processing... not simply a state of being.

To call them operands seems to identify a fundamental misunderstanding of emotional processing, and taking it for granted. Probably because it is so quick, and native... whereas logic is often learned, often learned wrong, and often corrected in a continuous cycle. You went to school for 16+ years, yes? Almost all of that follows logical instruction, breaking and relearning what you already know.

How much time have you spent learning how to love? For most... they simply find themselves there.
That, like a great deal of logic, assumes a lot...
One of the beauties of being a programmer... I have vb6 studio on my machine. For those who don't know, people haven't written in vb6 in close to 15 years. I have it there to maintain old code. The advantage of that... is that while I get to play in an almost purely logical environment, I get to relive myself and others from over a decade ago. It's amazing to look back and see the coding from a decade ago, and the assumptions I made.

Logic makes a lot of assumptions, and is based off of learning. It's also often wrong, or incomplete. "Common sense" is logical.All of which was once believed - based on logic and current understanding.

We make assumptions based on learning and build on them. If I have two apples, and I get two more, then I have 4 apples. But math can say that 2 + 2 = (3/4/5).

Religion and religious belief is logical. As is the scientific method. Both are valid within their own scope, though they may conflict on a larger scale.

Learn or perceive something false... and the logic built on it may work, and still be completely false.

The beauty of emotion... it is raw, extremely quick, and primal... but also very accurate and simple to understand. We instantly know what we are draw to, or away from. We know to be cautious or afraid, we know to be curious. They are the things that literally keep us alive and functioning. They might be wrong, but they generally aren't about the greater world... but how we perceive it and what parts of it we perceive.

Meanwhile... we have spent human history making regular errors in logic even more than correcting them. To say religion is wrong, because everyone else believes it wrong... That's just more logic :) One person's logic to say another's logic is wrong. It's "irrational" to then jump on that same self-negating mechanism and hold it up as right.

So yes, I have to disagree. Logic says your logic is flawed, and thus I accept logic as useful but not always best or correct.
Hmm, Bob, I'm beginning to doubt your logical abilities.

The logic makes no assumptions whatsoever.  In fact, it cares nothing for semantics at all.

I can make a simple logical argument:

If A and B, then C.

If you know logic at all, then you read this if both A and B are true, then C is true.  In that argument 'A' and 'B' are operands, 'and' is the operator and 'C' is the result your testing, or aiming for.  There are no assumptions in the logic, and the logic doesn't give a rat's p'tute what A, B or C are.  Like I said before, the tough devil is in how you determine the value of your operands.

We could set:
A = the cat is hungry
B = there is food available
C = I will feed the cat

We could set:
A = it's a beautiful day
B = it's okay with work
C = I'll take the day off and go swimming in a river with my family.

Now, the same logical argument works for both those very different cases.  This is admittedly a very simple logical argument, and the value of the the operands are easily determined by a simple true/false test, but it is not different in practice to a very complex situation.  All you have to do is break it down to smaller problems.

BTW, have you ever done machine language programming?  You'd get a much better lesson in logic by using ML than you will by using F# or VB6 any day, and write more efficient code to boot.

I keep and Apple II around and write programs in Applesoft Basic for fun 'n' games.  One of may last projects was to simulate recursion in Applesoft.  Another was to write an extensible RPN calculator.  I actually  use that one. I also did a multi-body celestial mechanics simulation using step-wise numerical methods to solve the calculus.  That one's a bit sllllooow, but it works.

In any case, you'll get real good at breaking logic problems down to manageable units writing ML code.  Try it.
17  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 10:35AM
How do you measure infinity? it doesn't have a value. It's limitless, like God. What a coincidence.

DD, this is as example of trying to use a trombone to pickle eggs.  In any case, it's not limitless, it's unbounded.  Infinity is very often used in mathematical analysis as a limit.  To mathematicians there is a distinct difference.  I suspect true theologians hold a similar distinction.

For instance I can give you a limit that was placed on God in this very thread by religious folks.  God apparently cannot tell a lie, ipso facto, God has limits.

Using logic, I can conclude that billo  is an atheist. (not hard since he admits it)
There's hope for you yet.

18  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 10:23AM
Science will eventually explain everything it can explain.  Unfortuantely, Everything that exists >> Everything that science can prove. 
I can agree with this Billy, but for reasons you may not agree with.  Look up the Russel Paradox.
19  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 08:53AM
How do you logically define and measure a beautiful day? Your love for your family? The cool sensation of swimming in a mountain stream on a hot day? Or how do you tell the difference between meaningless background noise, and meaningful background noise logically before that meaningful noise attacks you (one of the basics of human thought is that logic is one of the slower processes)?
These are emotional variables - operands.  If you have a decision around these, like "Wow what a beautiful day.  Should I spend it with my family swimming in a mountain stream, or should I go to work?" you would then collect sufficient opperands, both emotional and factual, weight them accordingly and a apply logic to come up with the best outcome.

And yes, I think logic is a superior thinking tool to apply to decision making than the alternatives.  The purest type of logic, as you know, is built from a very small set of operations and forms.  The devil, if you pardon the expression, is in the valuation of the operands and the construct of the arguments.  The latter is the easier one to get a handle on, the former is, when emotion is involved, subjective.  Is going to swim with your family a 'better' activity than going to work on a beautiful day?  You may have to bring in many other operands and value them to build a suitable expression.  But once you have your operands defined to your satisfaction, applying logic to make your decisions will always work.

It's what we normally call "taking everything pertinent in account", "looking before we leap", "giving it some thought".  The alternative is being irrational.  I honestly try to avoid being irrational.
20  Practice Break / Chit-Chat / Re: God on: Jul 19, 2017, 07:30AM
So... I'm afraid before I could answer your question, I would have to ask another: Why would I attempt to limit myself to solely logical reasoning when I clearly use more than that, and logic clearly has it's own shortcomings and limitations?
I'm not sure what you mean that logic clearly has it's own shortcomings and limitations.  You claim to be a programmer.  When has logic let you down?

You must also be aware that logic is a framework - a tool for thinking.  It can be applied anywhere, even when using emotions to get a sense of a situation.

Here is a use of logic in an emotional situation:

You have and extra $2000.  You do not need anything at the moment, but there are a couple of options with possible positive emotional outcomes.

You could A) buy another nice trombone you've wanted and make yourself a bit happier.  B) you could re-build the flower garden and make your wife a bit happier.  You determine through emotional analysis that A and B are approximately of the same prima-facie emotional value.  So, you further analyze the situation.  Choosing A could be viewed a selfish which is a negative, choosing B could be viewed as altruistic, which is a positive.  You therefore choose B in order to realize the best positive emotional outcome.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 120