Just looking for any information on this topic.
I have some ideas on this topic, but they are foetal, and in all likelihood, useless.
I am not sure about what exactly you are asking. But some of the work of Hoppe (like this lecture, especially) may fit that description.
I tried doing it yesterday -I wouldn’t trust mine either since it all depends on how well I grasp philosophy/logic.
Anyways it was fun though, out of curiosity, what was your idea anyways?
Adam Knott post incoming.
Haha. It’s amazing how much nonsense can follow from the enlightening and empty tautology that “humans act”…
how can it be nonsense if it follows from it? tautological perhaps but untrue, no.
Because it doesn’t really follow. The rules of logic can tell you if a theory is consistent or not, but the rules are not the theory. The theory doesn’t follow from the rules. The same is true for something like the so called action axiom. It can be used to check the consistency of theories but not to ‘create’ them.
Ah yes and how fashionable it is to attack the procedure of logical implication formally governed by the rule that conclusions following from true premises must be true. I mean it is not like all scientific knowledge and methods of deductive reasoning rest on this category…[8-)]
the creative, imaginitive, insightful mind, tethered to the axioms… explores possible implications, and tests itself for error by considering the consistency of its derivations against the bedrock axioms, and so the axioms alone do not ‘create’ them (the theorems and further conclusions), but the axioms alone can logically entail them… the axioms are the germs of the theorems.
s.
BAM! Kicking your moral crusade up a notch, I see
While your at it, I think the Hitleresque science of theist and the Fabians Watson and Crick could use denouncing, as their other beliefs make gravity and the double helix ethically and morally incorrect.
Your eyes seem very wide; perhaps you should blink them every so often to prevent losing sight and gaining visions.
That’s not what I did. You fail.
Get lost. Go lick stirner’s boots.
A is A only means that [that==the identity principle]. It doesn’t entail ‘everything’.
By the way dondooleee you are such a hypocrite. My ‘moral crusade’, whatever that is, seems to upset you because it just happens to be at odds with your amoral crusade. You are an amoralist crusader who denies to be a crusader. How laughable.
???
I think I stated my position as clearly as I can. Logic is not the whole realm of knowledge.
World is illusion.
A is A
These are both logically consistent propositions.
edit: Theoretically, consistent with a scientific theory in other words, the former proposition is not necessarily true. Episteme is different than logic. Sometimes knowledge is in error and thus the whole theory fails, but that has nothing to do with logic.
well, i agree. coolbeans
All of mathematics is also tautologies, in the looser sense of the word. In math, we don’t use the word “theory” but instead “theorem” - to distinguish from a scientific theory, which is always subject to refinement. Like correct mathematical theorems, correctly derived praxeological statements are not subject to refinement. They are either correctly derived, and hence apodictically certain, or there was an error in the derivation.