ydoaPs

You still seem to be missing what logic is about. Logic isn't about rocks, trees, or gods; it's about ideas. What's more, it's not even about the content of the ideas (you'll need probability theory for that)-it's just about the structure. Logic is the calculus of how ideas relate to each other. That's it. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything in the universe other than ideas. That being said, logics aren't absolute. There are cases where basic bivalent sentential logic is inadequate. It doesn't work for QM, since it is bivalent and reality on the quantum level isn't. That is, our ideas about reality will be contradictions in sentential logic if they accurately describe the QM world. It doesn't work for most of English (or any natural language, for that matter). It can't handle adjectives, verbs, or quantities (which is why we usually use first order quantified predicate logics rather than simple sentential logics). It also can't hand what we call "modalities"-things like tense, causal connection, belief, necessity/contingency, and moral obligation. There is nothing "absolute" about logics. When one doesn't work, we make a new one.

It sounds like a snazzy gig. Good luck.

Good good. I think we should move on to Haiku.

For some reason, I started reading this post like it was Green Eggs and Ham and was disappointed that it didn't work out.

That's because there's no such thing as a "logical absolute".

Giving examples is not the same thing as defining. Guess what, they're just three forms of the same tautology. It's not even special, since all theorems are tautologies. Citing three equivalent forms of the same proposition in no way tells us what a "logical absolute" is. Uninterpreted, logic is just manipulation of meaningless symbols. Given the standard interpretation, it's called "PROPOSITIONAL Calculus" and, as the name suggests, is about propositions. In a world with no minds, there are no propositions. So, yeah, logic doesn't exist if there are no minds. The only thing logic has to do with is how ideas structurally relate to one another. That's it. Nothing more.

As The Doctor will tell you, then thing about Susan is that he is Amazing.

Vodka and time.

There's no such thing as capital L Logic. You need to use the logic suited to the task. For example, the standard example of logical syllogism (All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is moral) is invalid on standard sentential logic. You need to use a more powerful logic (first order quantified logic) for it to be valid.

Read by posts again. There is no such thing as "logical absolutes".

No, it doesn't. Aristotle's logic doesn't even work for beliefs, necessity, or time. Not all logics are created equal. It most certainly is not. Humans suck at doing logic naturally. No, because it's false.

Or you could always get compromising photos of Cap'n.

Logics are indeed invented. The one most people know about is an approximation of how ideas (and, thus our descriptions of the macroscopic world) relate to one another. There are cases when it fails to accurately describe reality. For instance, take the spin of an electron. It can act like it is spinning clockwise, or counterclockwise. We can, however, make it so that it acts like it is spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time. That is, if we say p:the electron is spinning clockwise, we get p&~p which is a contradiction in classical bivalent logic. That's been dead since Plato. Mathematics and logics are formal systems, but mathematics aren't logics and logics aren't mathematics. You can, however, build mathematical systems using second order quantified logics in conjunction with set theory. ~pvp is the same thing as p->p (they're contrapositives of each other). p=p is (p->p)&(p->p) which is the same as p->p which is ~pvp. ~(p&~p) is the same as (via De Morgan's rule) ~pvp.

Actually, now that I think about it, all three of those propositions are equivalent.

Try quoting a post and then clicking the lightswitch in the text editor.

There's really no such thing as "laws of logic", but I think you're referring to three tautologies of bivalent sentential logic that people think are special for some reason. That would be pv~p, p=p, and ~(p&~p) (which is actually the same as pv~p). Yes, they are. No, they wouldn't. Logics are invented, not discovered. Sentential logic is just the one that most closely approximates how thoughts relate to each other.

Bubble edges disconnected? Why not Zoidberg?

I didn't know the bubble tags still worked.

The OP is going to get them as soon as he grows wings out of his back. Then, there will be ale and whores. ALE AND WHORES FOR EVERYONE! HUZZAH!

Only 5? Hmmm....yeah, let's go with that.

Dude, the first rule is that you do not talk about fight club.

Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.

Good luck. We already have a poster that does sophistcated bayesian analysis who has been here for years and isn't a moderator.

</thread> That's one of the rules, right? The first Godwin ends the thread?

Also, there'd have to be a massive redesign of the secondary plant to use a steam plant. Gravity helps a lot in everything from steam generation to condensation to net positive suction head for the pumps. Well, you could have electrical cooling for the condensers. It would probably still be a major energy concern considering the thermodynamic load of the vast array of condensers. And you'd still need a heat sink somewhere. The freezer thing only really uses up energy and pushes the problem back. Like swansont said, there will always be losses. You can't run a generator off of a motor forever because of the same reason-energy losses. Aside from the freezer bit, we actually do use nuclear plants for terrestrial energy production. Not so much in America, but France gets a large portion of their electricity via nuclear reactors.