The paradox of overunity

[WilbyInebriated]

The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, .

insane as it is, this is possibly the most oft committed (tight race with ad hominem) logical fallacy...

god is love.
love is blind.
ray charles is blind.
thus ray charles is god.

(only because this site has no face/palm smiley)

[onthecuttingedge2005]

Hi guys.

Over-Unity is possible, it was done on the first day of nuclear testing, a nuclear bomb detonation has 30,000 times more energy than what it took to develop it.

this is truth.

do you see where this is going?

this does not include Fusion Bombs let alone Anti-matter bombs.

it is a 'direction' of where you should be and not an absolute of where it will go.

Jerry

[onthecuttingedge2005]

@Onthecuttingedge2010I'm not sure I would agree simply because a very long time ago logic would suggest the Earth was flat, that is as far as one could see the Earth was flat therefore as far as the facts and logic were concerned the Earth was flat. You see there is no such thing as "Logic" without people and people interpret the facts as they see fit therefore what we are really saying is that Logic is our interpretation or perspective of the facts we have but not facts of anything in themselves because we do not know.
I mention this because I see many critics using "Logic" to justify their "opinions" and make the deluded assumption that because logic is supposedly infallible so must their opinions be infallible, lol, I hope you can appreciate how insane this is. The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, .
In some sense we can replace logic with perspective, If we understand logic is simply a perspective then we can view a problem from many perspectives in order to get a more logical however it should be obvious that more people believing something does not make an answer more right only more popular as history has proven time and time again.
In essence it is a mistake to use logic as a crutch to justify our opinions because we know as a fact it is unreliable due to our history, we and logic are not perfect.
Regards
AC

you didn't read my quote did you?
Please read.
Reply #163

Jerry

[quantumtangles]

is that your idea of a cogent rebuttal?

Not really wilbyinebriated. I was just having a bit of fun. I understand your perspective. We all have different perspectives and I apologise if I descended into ad hominem mode.

I have been working quite hard on an alternative energy project and reacted irrationally to your observations out of fatigue. Apologies 

[Rosemary Ainslie]

insane as it is, this is possibly the most oft committed (tight race with ad hominem) logical fallacy...

god is love.
love is blind.
ray charles is blind.
thus ray charles is god.

(only because this site has no face/palm smiley)

Very good point Wilby.

Some doggerel - not sure if it's strictly on topic.

If philosophy is logical
And logic mathematical
Then the argument that follows this would be

That philosophy is measurable
Quantifiably discernible
And all determined unequivocally

While numbers metaphysical
Would then become nonsensical
A gross dimensional absurdity

While these thoughts are just conceptual
It may perhaps be practical
To wed these branches from a single tree

Of knowledge.  And though questionable
It still is more than reasonable
To let the thought conceive reality.