s*******u
发帖数: 1855 | 1 Below are my understandings. Some come from all the inductive school
(Russel, etc), some could be totally wrong.
There are two approaches to know the world: induction and deduction.
Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction. Logic (like
syllogism) gives the rules/laws to do deduction. There are surely
classifications of logic, like proposition logic, predicate logic, etc. But
in general, Logic does not KNOW the world directly, but gives us tools to
know the world.
Math = Axioms + Deduction. Axioms come from induction. From parallel axiom,
you get Euclidean Geometry. Here, parallel axiom is from induction, and all
the others are from deduction. U can get rid of parallel axiom, then you get
non-euclidean geometry. Neither euclidean nor Non-euclidean geometry is a
physical existence. It is our knowledge of the world. In old ages,
experience shows euclidean describes our world accurately. Late, people
realize that our world is non-euclidean, but Riemann. This does not change
logic and deduction at all. This just changes our induction!
Science = induction. All the most basic laws are from induction, like
Newton's Law. You can make deductions after some basic laws (which come from
induction), but essentially, science is induction. Therefore, there is no
ABSOLUTELY TRUE in science. Science, like math axioms, can only be
falsified. With more observations of the world, we may induct new basic
laws, which contradicts old basic laws. This is falsification. We can
replace Newton's gravity law by General Relativity. But the deduction from
the gravity laws is NEVER changed.
One world, in human history, we keep changing inductive knowledges, but
NEVER changed logic and deduction laws.
Above are my understandings. Criticisms to these understandings are
welcomed.
Back to Three Body III. Higher level of intelligence can change the science,
or math, or logic. Or in another word, change induction and deduction. I
cannot image a universe with a different logic (deduction rules), and I do
not believe (it is faith) that is possible.
However, it is very possible that all the axioms, science observations,
which all come from induction, are changed by higher level of intelligence.
Actually, it is very possible that, those basic rules from induction (like
constant light speed C) can change at different stage of the universe (see
Dirac's conjecture).
So I think Liu Cixin made a not bad job not changing the logic, but changing
the inductive knowledge of the universe. | h*h
发帖数: 27852 | 2 下面是我的理解。一些来自各学校的归纳
（拉塞尔等），有些可能是完全错误的。
有两种方法来认识世界：归纳和演绎。
首先是逻辑。这既不是归纳，也不扣除。逻辑（如
三段论）给出的规则/法律做扣除。肯定有
逻辑分类，如命题逻辑，谓词逻辑等，但
在一般情况下，逻辑不会直接了解世界，但给我们的工具
了解世界。
=公理+数学推导。公理来自诱导。从平行公理，
你欧几里德几何。在这里，从平行公理是诱导，而所有
其余的都是从扣除。 U可以摆脱平行公理，然后你
非欧几里得几何。无论是欧氏也非欧几里得几何是一
物质的存在。这是我们对世界的认识。在旧时代，
经验表明欧几里德准确描述了我们的世界。晚，人
认识到，我们的世界是非欧几何，但黎曼。这不会改变
逻辑和演绎的。这只是改变我们的感应！
科学=感应。所有的法律，从最基本的诱导，如
牛顿定律。您可以扣减后的一些基本法律（其中来自
归纳），但本质上，科学归纳。因此，不存在
绝对科学的真正。科学，数学公理一样，只能
伪造的。与世界上更多的观察，我们可以引导新的基本
法律，违背旧的基本法律。这是捏造。我们可以
代替牛顿的万有引力定律的广义相对论。但扣除额从
重力法律是从来没有改变过。
同一个世界，在人类历史上，我们不断变化的感性知识，但
从来没有改变逻辑和演绎法。
以上是我的理解。这些认识的批评是
欢迎。
回到三体三。更高的智力水平可以改变的科学，
或数学或逻辑。或在另一个字，改变归纳和演绎。我
无法想象一个有不同的逻辑（扣除规则）的宇宙，而我
不相信（这是信仰）这是可能的。
但是，它很可能所有的公理，科学观测，
所有来自诱导，是由更高的智力水平改变。
其实，这是非常可能的是，从感应者（如基本规则
恒光速度C）可以改变宇宙不同阶段（见
狄拉克猜想）。
因此，我认为刘差寻工作取得了不错的逻辑不改变，但改变
宇宙的感性知识。 | c****t
发帖数: 19049 | | s*******u
发帖数: 1855 | 4 sorry i do not have chinese input now. and thanks for the translation
But
,
all
【在 s*******u 的大作中提到】
: Below are my understandings. Some come from all the inductive school
: (Russel, etc), some could be totally wrong.
: There are two approaches to know the world: induction and deduction.
: Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction. Logic (like
: syllogism) gives the rules/laws to do deduction. There are surely
: classifications of logic, like proposition logic, predicate logic, etc. But
: in general, Logic does not KNOW the world directly, but gives us tools to
: know the world.
: Math = Axioms + Deduction. Axioms come from induction. From parallel axiom,
: you get Euclidean Geometry. Here, parallel axiom is from induction, and all
| d***e
发帖数: 1533 | 5 made a not bad job not changing the logic, but changing
the inductive knowledge of the universe. | s*r
发帖数: 2757 | 6 陈立功？
But
,
all
【在 s*******u 的大作中提到】
: Below are my understandings. Some come from all the inductive school
: (Russel, etc), some could be totally wrong.
: There are two approaches to know the world: induction and deduction.
: Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction. Logic (like
: syllogism) gives the rules/laws to do deduction. There are surely
: classifications of logic, like proposition logic, predicate logic, etc. But
: in general, Logic does not KNOW the world directly, but gives us tools to
: know the world.
: Math = Axioms + Deduction. Axioms come from induction. From parallel axiom,
: you get Euclidean Geometry. Here, parallel axiom is from induction, and all
| t**k
发帖数: 260 | 7 "Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction."
Logic is about deduction.
"Axioms come from induction"
Axioms don't have to come from induction. Say, logical axioms.
"Science = induction"
That is over simplification. For example, one important principle in science
is the Occam razor. I wouldn't say it's from either induction or deduction.
Btw, I prefer to think of science as a probabilistic system, instead of a
classic logic system.
But
,
all
【在 s*******u 的大作中提到】
: Below are my understandings. Some come from all the inductive school
: (Russel, etc), some could be totally wrong.
: There are two approaches to know the world: induction and deduction.
: Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction. Logic (like
: syllogism) gives the rules/laws to do deduction. There are surely
: classifications of logic, like proposition logic, predicate logic, etc. But
: in general, Logic does not KNOW the world directly, but gives us tools to
: know the world.
: Math = Axioms + Deduction. Axioms come from induction. From parallel axiom,
: you get Euclidean Geometry. Here, parallel axiom is from induction, and all
| h*h
发帖数: 27852 | 8 赞
你自己人肉翻译吧，我就不用古狗翻译机了
science
deduction.
【在 t**k 的大作中提到】
: "Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction."
: Logic is about deduction.
: "Axioms come from induction"
: Axioms don't have to come from induction. Say, logical axioms.
: "Science = induction"
: That is over simplification. For example, one important principle in science
: is the Occam razor. I wouldn't say it's from either induction or deduction.
: Btw, I prefer to think of science as a probabilistic system, instead of a
: classic logic system.
:
| h*****n
发帖数: 1630 | 9 我猜想，逻辑是我们的意识用以组织信息的方式，毫无疑问，这是我们理解世界的基础
，我们的数学物理都建筑在其上。
但是这种逻辑是否是唯一行得通的方式？这就不知道了。正如你所说，我们难以想象另
一种逻辑体系的存在。
我对这唯一的感想来自于做梦。在做梦的时候，明意识里的规则都弱化了，所以会出现
稀奇古怪的事。梦境里自己会说些话，自己当时也觉得很合理，但是醒过来一想觉得这
些话完全是无厘头。这个不知道可不可以算是另一个逻辑世界的启示。
But
,
all
【在 s*******u 的大作中提到】
: Below are my understandings. Some come from all the inductive school
: (Russel, etc), some could be totally wrong.
: There are two approaches to know the world: induction and deduction.
: Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction. Logic (like
: syllogism) gives the rules/laws to do deduction. There are surely
: classifications of logic, like proposition logic, predicate logic, etc. But
: in general, Logic does not KNOW the world directly, but gives us tools to
: know the world.
: Math = Axioms + Deduction. Axioms come from induction. From parallel axiom,
: you get Euclidean Geometry. Here, parallel axiom is from induction, and all
| j*****x
发帖数: 33 | 10 我觉得人类逻辑的建立首先是对事物的感知和分类。而人类之所以能够感知或判断外面
的事物依赖于人类和事物的直接或相互作用。直接作用如感光和声的变化，直接刺激感
官/受体得到（亮／暗等）。间接作用如加速器磁场变化感受到粒子，光通过物体折返
进入眼睛。
有了对事物的辨识后，不同的相关事物作用在一起，有决定性作用，称为逻辑。而不相
关的事物我们认为不存在逻辑。这种通过我们自己对物质的相互作用的探测而判断出物
质或事件相互作用的决定性称为逻辑。但第一条限制是我们的感知是通过与对象的相互
作用而来，因此还是经验的，能决定逻辑的决定性就是经验的，因此不存在逻辑的根本
性之说。 | | | j*****x
发帖数: 33 | 11 比如说数学，1＋1＝2，也是建立在经验上的，否则也可有1＋1＝3.
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得人类逻辑的建立首先是对事物的感知和分类。而人类之所以能够感知或判断外面
: 的事物依赖于人类和事物的直接或相互作用。直接作用如感光和声的变化，直接刺激感
: 官/受体得到（亮／暗等）。间接作用如加速器磁场变化感受到粒子，光通过物体折返
: 进入眼睛。
: 有了对事物的辨识后，不同的相关事物作用在一起，有决定性作用，称为逻辑。而不相
: 关的事物我们认为不存在逻辑。这种通过我们自己对物质的相互作用的探测而判断出物
: 质或事件相互作用的决定性称为逻辑。但第一条限制是我们的感知是通过与对象的相互
: 作用而来，因此还是经验的，能决定逻辑的决定性就是经验的，因此不存在逻辑的根本
: 性之说。
| t**k
发帖数: 260 | 12 逻辑应该是先验的吧，即与经验无关。
比方说MP规则：
If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: 我觉得人类逻辑的建立首先是对事物的感知和分类。而人类之所以能够感知或判断外面
: 的事物依赖于人类和事物的直接或相互作用。直接作用如感光和声的变化，直接刺激感
: 官/受体得到（亮／暗等）。间接作用如加速器磁场变化感受到粒子，光通过物体折返
: 进入眼睛。
: 有了对事物的辨识后，不同的相关事物作用在一起，有决定性作用，称为逻辑。而不相
: 关的事物我们认为不存在逻辑。这种通过我们自己对物质的相互作用的探测而判断出物
: 质或事件相互作用的决定性称为逻辑。但第一条限制是我们的感知是通过与对象的相互
: 作用而来，因此还是经验的，能决定逻辑的决定性就是经验的，因此不存在逻辑的根本
: 性之说。
| t**k
发帖数: 260 | 13 自然数可以用集合论构造定义。集合论的公理，不知道算是先验还是后验。
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: 比如说数学，1＋1＝2，也是建立在经验上的，否则也可有1＋1＝3.
| l*****9
发帖数: 9501 | 14 笑话，1+1=2根本就是定义，靠什么经验
1+1=2 就象 白就是白 一样，没有任何经验推理和验证
两点之间直线最短，才是基于经验的公理
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: 比如说数学，1＋1＝2，也是建立在经验上的，否则也可有1＋1＝3.
| s*******u
发帖数: 1855 | 15 agree.
this is descriptive logic
【在 l*****9 的大作中提到】
: 笑话，1+1=2根本就是定义，靠什么经验
: 1+1=2 就象 白就是白 一样，没有任何经验推理和验证
: 两点之间直线最短，才是基于经验的公理
| j*****x
发帖数: 33 | 16 如果你先拿一个，再拿一个放在一起，得到的是3个，那人们的逻辑应该是1＋1＝3。
【在 l*****9 的大作中提到】
: 笑话，1+1=2根本就是定义，靠什么经验
: 1+1=2 就象 白就是白 一样，没有任何经验推理和验证
: 两点之间直线最短，才是基于经验的公理
| j*****x
发帖数: 33 | 17 Please read this, Logic is from experience.
Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the study of arguments
.[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily
in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic
examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and
which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the
study of logic figures in most major areas of focus: epistemology, ethics,
metaphysics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some
formal language.[3]
Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including India, China
and Greece. Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle, who
established its fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part
of the classical trivium.
Averroes defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and
the false;"[4] Richard Whately, "the Science, as well as the Art, of
reasoning;" and Gottlob Frege, "the science of the most general laws of
truth." The article Definitions of logic provides citations for these and
other definitions.
Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive
reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples,
the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A
similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the
first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second
considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.
【在 s*******u 的大作中提到】
: agree.
: this is descriptive logic
| t**k
发帖数: 260 | 18 Where in this text does it say logic is from experience?
arguments
primarily
Logic
and
the
,
some
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: Please read this, Logic is from experience.
: Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the study of arguments
: .[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily
: in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic
: examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and
: which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the
: study of logic figures in most major areas of focus: epistemology, ethics,
: metaphysics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some
: formal language.[3]
: Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including India, China
| g****t
发帖数: 31659 | 19 你正在往民科的邪路上走......
以数学为例。人类积累下来的数学知识，很重要的一部分，是哪些数学问题是有价值的，
哪些数学问题是没价值的。这和公理或者演绎归纳是没多大关系的。
为什么物理对数学很重要？因为物理是高价值数学问题的源泉,有时候还是数学问题重
要性的标尺。
But
,
all
【在 s*******u 的大作中提到】
: Below are my understandings. Some come from all the inductive school
: (Russel, etc), some could be totally wrong.
: There are two approaches to know the world: induction and deduction.
: Logic is above all. It is neither induction nor deduction. Logic (like
: syllogism) gives the rules/laws to do deduction. There are surely
: classifications of logic, like proposition logic, predicate logic, etc. But
: in general, Logic does not KNOW the world directly, but gives us tools to
: know the world.
: Math = Axioms + Deduction. Axioms come from induction. From parallel axiom,
: you get Euclidean Geometry. Here, parallel axiom is from induction, and all
| l*****9
发帖数: 9501 | 20 那你告诉我，什么是2什么是3
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: 如果你先拿一个，再拿一个放在一起，得到的是3个，那人们的逻辑应该是1＋1＝3。
| | | j*****x
发帖数: 33 | 21 Look at following parts:
logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive
reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples,
the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A
similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the
first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second
considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.
Even for the second, the definitions is generated from what I describe
before, by experience of detection and recoginization.
Hope can help you understanding.
arguments
primarily
Logic
and
the
,
some
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: Please read this, Logic is from experience.
: Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the study of arguments
: .[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily
: in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic
: examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and
: which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the
: study of logic figures in most major areas of focus: epistemology, ethics,
: metaphysics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some
: formal language.[3]
: Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including India, China
| j*****x
发帖数: 33 | 22 Look at following parts:
logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive
reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples,
the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A
similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the
first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second
considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.
Even for the second, the definitions is generated from what I describe
before, by experience of detection and recoginization.
Hope can help you understanding.
arguments
primarily
Logic
and
the
,
some
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: Please read this, Logic is from experience.
: Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē)[1] is the study of arguments
: .[2] Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily
: in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic
: examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and
: which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the
: study of logic figures in most major areas of focus: epistemology, ethics,
: metaphysics. In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some
: formal language.[3]
: Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including India, China
| g****t
发帖数: 31659 | 23 战争有战争的逻辑,历史有历史的逻辑,这个大家都能听懂吧?
logic跟小学数学关系其实并不大.
Look at following parts:
logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive
reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples,
the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A
similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the
first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second
considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.
Even for the second, the definitions is generated from what I describe
before, by experience of detection and recoginization.
Hope can help you understanding.
arguments
primarily
Logic
and
the
,
some
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: Look at following parts:
: logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive
: reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples,
: the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A
: similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the
: first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second
: considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.
: Even for the second, the definitions is generated from what I describe
: before, by experience of detection and recoginization.
: Hope can help you understanding.
| t**k
发帖数: 260 | 24 If r u saying that induction is from experience, I suppose u r trying to say
the application of induction is on empirical knowledge. However, for the
induction reasoning itself (aka, the rules), it's probably not from
experience.
The same for deduction, i.e., the logic rules and logic axioms are probably
not from experience.
You said for deduction, "the definitions is generated from what I describe
before, by experience of detection and recoginization".
Definitions of what?
second
【在 j*****x 的大作中提到】
: Look at following parts:
: logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive
: reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples,
: the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A
: similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the
: first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second
: considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.
: Even for the second, the definitions is generated from what I describe
: before, by experience of detection and recoginization.
: Hope can help you understanding.
| j*****x
发帖数: 33 | 25 I think you are talking about reasoning, not logic. My understanding is
logic is consequence of reasoning, a well organized reasoning lead to a
logic output．That logic isn't equal to reasoning. My understanding logic is
more like judgement of a specific topic.
Even when we talk about our reasoning, there is an axiom, which means the
deduction can't contradict with itself. Which I would like to call as a "
close operation". But indeed, this kind of close operation is from
experience, based on what we know from the world.
say
probably
【在 t**k 的大作中提到】
: If r u saying that induction is from experience, I suppose u r trying to say
: the application of induction is on empirical knowledge. However, for the
: induction reasoning itself (aka, the rules), it's probably not from
: experience.
: The same for deduction, i.e., the logic rules and logic axioms are probably
: not from experience.
: You said for deduction, "the definitions is generated from what I describe
: before, by experience of detection and recoginization".
: Definitions of what?
:
|
|
