| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): parsec ( 먼 소 류 ) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 6일 목요일 오후 07시 42분 40초 제 목(Title): Re: Definitions > Then, to understand you more, let me ask you this: > Do you think that "conclusion A from belief and conclusion B from logical > reasoning match" means the same thing as "A is a conclusion from logical > reasoning"? > _______________ > I cannot catch the point. > "I can walk on Mars" comes from both my belief and logic. > If A and B matches (in my travel case, A=B), than what's the > differenct between A and B? I mean, > > A is a conclusion from logical reasoning. > B is a conclusion from logical reasoning. > > Aboves are same statement since (A=B). I cannot catch your point. > Let me restate your 'logical' conclusion more like logical and compare with a belief: A: I believe I can walk on Mars for no reason B: I believe I can walk on Mars, because if NASA enables the trip to Mars and if I can afford the pay, I have ticket to Mars, and for all possibility NASA will surely enable it before I die and by then I'll have enough money to afford the ticket. Thus for all possibility I have ticket to Mars. The two looks the same at the first sight. But A is a pure belief with no logical ground. B has a logical ground so it is a logical conclusion. If you are sane enough you don't present A, as having no logical reason simultaneously with B, with its logical background. You will have A or B, but not both at the same time. I ask you if you still consider them as the same thing. I wonder if it would be more clear, but I'm asking you if you consider to be the same: having logical reason, and not having logical reason, for some idea. ◇ ~~~_ _ ∴ ~|~| | _/__, SEP. 11. 2001 _ ∴∴ _ ~ | | ＼ ` Armorica under a tat ,-| `,-,_| |__ | | | A ______|_|__|_|___|__|| | |__|_|_____________________________________ |