decided I'm agnostic

[Dale]

I still think metaphors and parables are valuable

I still think abstraction and hope are valuable

I just recently have come to think that you can't infer your way to
the cosmological whole

I agree the "scientific process" is the best inference to faith

my only complaint is that the "scientific institution" has redefined
the Renascence from rebirth to something new, science is a natural
way, its just means that have evolved

you'll probably still find me inferring theology, it is part of
empiricism, just older, there is progress but then there is the test
of time

when I know the cosmological whole, I can deduce the pieces, when I
know the cosmological pieces I can induce the whole

the is no partial induction, only inductive statistical probabilities,
if you know a statistically designed experiment with 100% correlation
between dependent and independent variables, with all relative control
variables in place, I'll say there is partial induction, otherwise it
is hope

there is faith in partial deduction, assuming logic prevails

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Dale
I still think metaphors and parables are valuable
I still think abstraction and hope are valuable
I just recently have come to think that you can't infer your way to
the cosmological whole
I agree the "scientific process" is the best inference to faith
my only complaint is that the "scientific institution" has redefined
the Renascence from rebirth to something new, science is a natural
way, its just means that have evolved
you'll probably still find me inferring theology, it is part of
empiricism, just older, there is progress but then there is the test
of time
when I know the cosmological whole, I can deduce the pieces, when I
know the cosmological pieces I can induce the whole
the is no partial induction, only inductive statistical probabilities,
if you know a statistically designed experiment with 100% correlation
between dependent and independent variables, with all relative control
variables in place, I'll say there is partial induction, otherwise it
is hope
there is faith in partial deduction, assuming logic prevails

EXIST(X) EXIST(X)

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:29:26 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Dale
I still think metaphors and parables are valuable
I still think abstraction and hope are valuable
I just recently have come to think that you can't infer your way to
the cosmological whole
I agree the "scientific process" is the best inference to faith
my only complaint is that the "scientific institution" has redefined
the Renascence from rebirth to something new, science is a natural
way, its just means that have evolved
you'll probably still find me inferring theology, it is part of
empiricism, just older, there is progress but then there is the test
of time
when I know the cosmological whole, I can deduce the pieces, when I
know the cosmological pieces I can induce the whole
the is no partial induction, only inductive statistical probabilities,
if you know a statistically designed experiment with 100% correlation
between dependent and independent variables, with all relative control
variables in place, I'll say there is partial induction, otherwise it
is hope
there is faith in partial deduction, assuming logic prevails

EXIST(X) EXIST(X)

SPAND(X) SPAND(X)

Nice leotard. Or is that REtard?

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:29:26 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Dale
I still think metaphors and parables are valuable
I still think abstraction and hope are valuable
I just recently have come to think that you can't infer your way to
the cosmological whole
I agree the "scientific process" is the best inference to faith
my only complaint is that the "scientific institution" has redefined
the Renascence from rebirth to something new, science is a natural
way, its just means that have evolved
you'll probably still find me inferring theology, it is part of
empiricism, just older, there is progress but then there is the test
of time
when I know the cosmological whole, I can deduce the pieces, when I
know the cosmological pieces I can induce the whole
the is no partial induction, only inductive statistical probabilities,
if you know a statistically designed experiment with 100% correlation
between dependent and independent variables, with all relative control
variables in place, I'll say there is partial induction, otherwise it
is hope
there is faith in partial deduction, assuming logic prevails

EXIST(X) EXIST(X)

SPAND(X) SPAND(X)
Nice leotard. Or is that REtard?

Aha what I meant was you only need to assume 1 common sense tautology to attain absolute truth in formal logic.

--
1ST LADY OBAMA RECOVERS FROM PLASTIC SURGERY
Loading Image...

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 13:55:28 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 19:29:26 -0800 (PST), the following

Post by g***@gmail.com

Post by Dale
I still think metaphors and parables are valuable
I still think abstraction and hope are valuable
I just recently have come to think that you can't infer your way to
the cosmological whole
I agree the "scientific process" is the best inference to faith
my only complaint is that the "scientific institution" has redefined
the Renascence from rebirth to something new, science is a natural
way, its just means that have evolved
you'll probably still find me inferring theology, it is part of
empiricism, just older, there is progress but then there is the test
of time
when I know the cosmological whole, I can deduce the pieces, when I
know the cosmological pieces I can induce the whole
the is no partial induction, only inductive statistical probabilities,
if you know a statistically designed experiment with 100% correlation
between dependent and independent variables, with all relative control
variables in place, I'll say there is partial induction, otherwise it
is hope
there is faith in partial deduction, assuming logic prevails

EXIST(X) EXIST(X)

SPAND(X) SPAND(X)
Nice leotard. Or is that REtard?

Aha what I meant was you only need to assume 1 common sense tautology to attain absolute truth in formal logic.

Good formal logic doesn't start with tautologies, it starts
with accurate premises. And even then, it doesn't actually
demonstrate anything beyond the fact that the conclusions
which follow from the premises don't violate the rules of
logic.

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Dale
I still think metaphors and parables are valuable
I still think abstraction and hope are valuable
I just recently have come to think that you can't infer your way to
the cosmological whole
I agree the "scientific process" is the best inference to faith
my only complaint is that the "scientific institution" has redefined
the Renascence from rebirth to something new, science is a natural
way, its just means that have evolved
you'll probably still find me inferring theology, it is part of
empiricism, just older, there is progress but then there is the test
of time
when I know the cosmological whole, I can deduce the pieces, when I
know the cosmological pieces I can induce the whole
the is no partial induction, only inductive statistical probabilities,
if you know a statistically designed experiment with 100% correlation
between dependent and independent variables, with all relative control
variables in place, I'll say there is partial induction, otherwise it
is hope
there is faith in partial deduction, assuming logic prevails
--
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

can a basketball player assume a court under his feet?


IF R = { x | x ~e x }
THEN R e R is FALSE
AND R ~e R is FALSE
SO ~EXIST(R)

[Dale]

Post by g***@gmail.com
can a basketball player assume a court under his feet?
IF R = { x | x ~e x }
THEN R e R is FALSE
AND R ~e R is FALSE
SO ~EXIST(R)

can you do this in ANDs and ORs? I can of forget my logic 101 course,
guess I could google first...

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by Dale

Post by g***@gmail.com
can a basketball player assume a court under his feet?
IF R = { x | x ~e x }
THEN R e R is FALSE
AND R ~e R is FALSE
SO ~EXIST(R)

can you do this in ANDs and ORs? I can of forget my logic 101 course,
guess I could google first...

R is Russell's Set

The point I'm making just to clarify...

The Set of All Sets that Don't Contain themselves cannot exist
is an absolute truth.....


....



......



...


..