Federica wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 5:52 pm
Few are extravagant enough to deny the laws of nature, and that our physical body is submitted to these. I am not one of them Jonathan But your use of logic is slightly extravagant, I must say
Dear Federica,
Hi,
Thank you very much for all your above contributions to the debate of
my syllogisms.
My main Ayahuasca syllogism, and our short debate, might seem very simple at a cursory glance.
However, there is a hidden, profound conceptual depth to it.
Federica, what if I told you that in our debate,
we both were
correct, and at the same time, we both were
wrong ?
I will elaborate on it when I have the right moment for it.
Federica, let me give you just
one hint to start with.
You critically and logically examined my main syllogism.
In support of your logical criticism you then quoted
a syllogism that a correlation is not a causation,
which is clearly true, but only in some limited general sense,
because it all depends on our understanding
of what causation might ultimately be, if anything at all (it is still debatable).
And if there isn't any causation at all, than based on this,
what would you hope to prove? Maybe only that we know
that we don't know anything for certain.
Then you quoted BK's paper which is full of syllogisms.
One syllogism can't possible
cause a true conclusion to appear
in a form of another syllogism, or as a simple assertion.
All syllogisms in papers, like the BK's paper, are merely
combined in a string of weak correlations only,
which
prove absolutely
nothing, because the proper notion
of scientific
proof, strictly speaking, is only applicable
in the field of mathematics, and nowhere else in science, at all,
not even in the
experimental physics.
Except mathematics, all well-established scientific conclusions
are considered to be true, but only tentatively, until such time,
when they could be somehow, convincingly enough,
demonstrated (but
not proven) to be wrong.
Philosophy is the last place in science where anything at all
could be established to be true beyond even a small reasonable doubt,
and this equally applies to all
my philosophical syllogisms
and assertions that are logical, reasonable, and seem to clearly be true.
The objective physical evidence, so far only, that what I wrote above
is true for the time being, are never-ending an unceasing scientific
and philosophical debates, like the ones on this forum.
Federica, I hope that you will be surprised that in mathematics
there has been a well-established and well-accepted
irrefutable PROOF
that all we can possibly know for certain is that we don't know
anything for certain. And this applies to the entire human knowledge,
past, present, and even
future, regardless whether there is
such thing as
causation, or
not.
I am not kidding you, Federica.
Do you know what is this
proof called?
If not, then maybe somebody else on this forum knows it ?
https://quantumantigravity.wordpress.com/up/
.