humans and logic

[Rainy]

On 17 Jun 2001 08:33:02 GMT, Rory Baker <roryking at aol.com> wrote:
> Humans are naturally illogical. It was illogical to raise a point that so many
> people could argue against. It is illogical for me to waste my time pointing
> out flaws in an argument that may no longer exist in about a year. But I do it
> anyway, because part of myself (the illogical part) compells me to do this.
> Yeah, binary *might* be a good mathmatical base to work upon, but there will
> always be some dude in the back that won't switch. People have machines to
> convert number systems and languages and all this nice stuff so that people
> aren't spending days just trying to say 'hi' to one another. There is no
> 'ideal' operating system, no 'ideal' language, no 'ideal number system. Even

The problem is, even if there were, it's impossible to tell. We don't know
everything and we don't know all the laws. So it's kind of like solving
one equation with two unknown variables. Then again, even if one did know
that using hex is, indeed, better, and he knew it for a fact, he still wouldn't
have any way to prove it to the world that converting to it is worth its while.

So, this guy comes here and posts (OT!) that 1) using hex is more logical than
using dec and 2) implied that we should therefore start using hex and lead
some sort of uprising to convert everyone to hex, because 'logic will win out
in the end' (which is an oddly mystical kind of statement from a logical
don quixote).

Both of these points are obviously unprovable. This guy is a nut.


> the most "logical" concepts of human thought are flawed. Take, for example, the
> concept of negative numbers. Except for financial cases where negative numbers
> indicate debt, or graphing, where negative numbers indicate position, negative
> numbers have no relavance in a positive universe. I cannot run negative miles.
> I cannot go to McDonalds and order the McNegative Cheeseburger with a side of
> negitavesize fries, and by paying for this negative meal with negative money,
> gain positive money. Then there is the question of dividing by zero. How much
> of nothing can you fit in to 1? How much nothing can you cram in to nothing? To
> paraphrase "The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy" (Douglas Adams), you could,
> for example, have both a cup of tea and no tea at the same time. In one hand,
> you have tea, and in the other, you have no tea. To conclude, everybody is
> kinda right and kinda wrong on this one. Then again, maybe it's just me. I
> don't know. Anyone want to help me out? Anyone?


-- 
Shine on you crazy diamond
        - Roger