Prove Reason Wrong!

[DaveShack]

OK, taking a little liberty here, it's been 14 years since the last time I worked this particular problem.

Theorem 1: any logic problem can be proven in a finite amount of time.

Suppose Th.1 were true. Then it would be possible to prove the general case of algorithmic correctness of an arbitrarily complex system, since such algorithms and and complexities can be described as logic.

Godel's theorem is commonly known to stand in the field of algorithms, that an arbitrarily complex algorithmic system cannot be proven correct. This is a contradiction to the example. Proving Godel's theorem false would be functionally equivalent to proving P=NP, which is known to be intractible.

Given a contradiction to Th. 1 exists, Th.1 must therefore be false, and it cannot be proven that no exception exists to the original theorem that Reason applies to every question.

 

[CartesianFart]

Prove Reason Wrong!

I can try.

To say 'reason' is wrong is to prove that there is or not a sufficient ground that is not established yet.

If 'reason' is not the subject of predicating what is wrong then there is nothing there for the support of the conclusion of what is wrong.

If there is a way or no way of providing a justification that is wrong then it must be what the proof that is invalid.

To say wrongly of 'reason' is validating the acceptance of any proof that is not tried or tested.

 

[Masquerouge]

I believe any reading of a newspaper should do the trick.

 

[LucyDuke]

I believe any reading of a newspaper should do the trick.

FTW!

 

[Xanikk999]

How can you prove logic wrong?

You can prove science wrong if its a faulty or outdated science. But logic is like math, when applied correctly cannot be proven wrong.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Governments are supposed to take care of the citizens. That;s logical.

But they don't!

Even better: Intelligent presidents are supposed to be elected.

Is Bush intelligent?

 

[Fifty]

WHY MOST FORMS OF REASON ARE FALLACIOUS AND THUS SHOULD BE DISREGARDED
By: Fifty Q Fiftyson

An argument that begs the question is one in which a premise presupposes the conclusion in some way. Such an argument is valid in the sense in which logicians use that term, yet provides no reason at all to believe its conclusion.

Most forms of reason are inductive (including science). You see that all ravens are black, you assume that the next raven you'll see will be black. You notice that falling bodies on earth follow the dictates of gravity, you make the conjecture that future falling bodies will follow the dictates of gravity. Inductive reasoning underlies pretty much every process of reason we utilize. The one possible exception would be proof in math and formal logic, although even those are goverened at least partially by an inductive belief that their validity will not change randomly.

That said, how does one justify the validity of induction? The only way I can think of is to say "well it has always worked". WAIT A SEC!!!! That's using induction to justify induction! You can't do that! It's a friggen fallacy!

Therefore reason is wrong, and we should all just throw up our hands and live on sustainable communes.

Thank you for your time.

Fifty Q Fiftyson, PhD
Logician, Philosopher, Sex Pig

All philosophy is a lie and reason a disorder of the mind.
- Ambrose Bierce, via FL2's sig

 

[Nylan]

Love makes perfect sense. What better way to ensure the survival of your offspring and those who help you survive and/or make your life meaningful?

Too bad that's not what love is

 

[nihilistic]

OK, taking a little liberty here, it's been 14 years since the last time I worked this particular problem.

Theorem 1: any logic problem can be proven in a finite amount of time.

Suppose Th.1 were true. Then it would be possible to prove the general case of algorithmic correctness of an arbitrarily complex system, since such algorithms and and complexities can be described as logic.

Godel's theorem is commonly known to stand in the field of algorithms, that an arbitrarily complex algorithmic system cannot be proven correct. This is a contradiction to the example. Proving Godel's theorem false would be functionally equivalent to proving P=NP, which is known to be intractible.

Given a contradiction to Th. 1 exists, Th.1 must therefore be false, and it cannot be proven that no exception exists to the original theorem that Reason applies to every question.

I think you are confused there. For one, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem deals with something completely different from P/NP. Everything in the scope of P/NP is 1. provable and 2. decidable. P/NP deals with runtime growth of finite state problems, not provability. If they were equal, P/NP would not still be an open problem.

Secondly, you also mischaracterized Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. There are no "exceptions", nor is it about proving a certain axiomatic system "correct". Axiomatic systems can never be proven "correct" (and no one has attempted to) because they are by definition reflections of the axioms they are based on. What Godel's Incompleteness Theorem states is that in any axiomatic system powerful enough to describe the natural numbers, you can construct statements which can neither be proven correct nor be proven wrong.

 

[Ari Rahikkala]

Newcomb's Paradox does not *quite* match what was requested, but it's a pretty fun problem anyway.

In his 1969 article, Nozick noted that "To almost everyone, it is perfectly clear and obvious what should be done. The difficulty is that these people seem to divide almost evenly on the problem, with large numbers thinking that the opposing half is just being silly."

 

[scy12]

It is highly likely that Aliens exist here in earth . God also exists. The Cristian God. Believe me as i have never said a lie and i will never do so.

 

[Narz]

Too bad that's not what love is

Ok, what is love then to you Mr. Nylan. The burden of proof (that the emotion of love is not logical, sensical or rational) is on you buddy.

Interesting responses peeps, I will get on the more in depth stuff this weekend.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Simple concept. Prove an instance in which reason/logic/science is wrong and something else is right.

The universe. According to reason, logic and science, it shouldnt be here, but it is.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Too bad that's not what love is

Being in a lovely relationship doesn't mean you know what love is either. But keep asking why.
why is love special?
why do you want love someone?
why does love happen?
and on and on
and you'll realize because the product of love is 100% Self-Interest and Benefit! A very reasonable thing.

Doesn't sound special now but it still is!

 

[Irish Caesar]

and you'll realize because the product of love is 100% Self-Interest and Benefit! A very reasonable thing.

Doesn't sound special now but it still is!

That would make sense if it weren't for the fact that pretty much everyone in the world gets hurt.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

While chasing self-interested things they so often don't think are self-interested (deluding theselves really) they tend to get hurt yes. The benefits of 'love' is usually, we mostly believe, greater than that of loneliness, so we face getting hurt in hopes of getting that lofty goal we call love.

 

[Fifty]

The universe. According to reason, logic and science, it shouldnt be here, but it is.

Could you elaborate a bit on that?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Could you elaborate a bit on that?

Everything in the universe comes from something else, everythings 'recycled' including the atoms that make up our bodies. Everything except the universe itself. According to our reason, logic and science, the universe seems to have popped into existence from nothing and nowhere.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Can't we reason that it was always there and is just, instead of coming from 'somewhere', just a changing entity... like everything else?

 

[Irish Caesar]

While chasing self-interested things they so often don't think are self-interested (deluding theselves really) they tend to get hurt yes. The benefits of 'love' is usually, we mostly believe, greater than that of loneliness, so we face getting hurt in hopes of getting that lofty goal we call love.

So are you trying to say love isn't "real," that it's all a delusion people create to feel secure? Because I'm not sure I follow you; you sound like you've neither loved nor been hurt or are trying to come across that way.