Hello,

More philosophy about correlation and logical implication..

I am a white arab and i think i am smart since i have also invented many
scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I think that correlation in mathematics and statistics is like the
general concept that permits to model causality, since i think that we
can search with correlation for all the factors that are the cause and
find causality. I think it i s the same for logical implication, logical
implication is like a general concept and logical implication is more
general than causality. And i think that real numbers in mathematics are
like a general concept
that permits to model the reality.

More precision about logic and being rigorous in mathematics..

So you have to be smart, since i am saying below that the following
logical implication of [3] is false since you have to analyze it
systemically,
since i am speaking about the independent system of [3] that is measured
by common sense and logic of reality:

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

More philosophy about being rigorous in mathematics..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i am inventing my
following thoughts of my philosophy from my brain, so i said the
following(read it below):

"I think logic in mathematics is really interesting and there is
something happening in logic in mathematics that looks like the real
numbers in mathematics, so i think by logically inferring the general
rule of: (p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making
the general "concept" that applies to all the "particular" cases, so it
also applies to causality since this general rule is like a general
concept that permits to "model" all the cases in the truth table of the
logical implication, so i think this way of doing by generalizing and
making like a general concept is really powerful, this is why i think
that real numbers in mathematics are like a concept that was made
to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it)"

So i will be more rigorous so that you understand:

So notice the following truth table of the logical implication:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

Note that p and q are logical variables.

So i think that the truth table is setting all the cases that can
hasppen in the reality, i give you an example:

If we take the following two propositions:

"I take my umbrella"

"The sky is raining"

So i think that the above truth table of the logical implication is like
also putting and setting in the truth table all the cases that can
happen in reality including the particular case of "causation", since we
need the general rule that is logically inferred to work on all the
cases in reality, but notice that we are also using our human common
sense and human logic, since we can generate all the following cases
from the truth table by using the above two propositions:

Note that -> means logical implication:

[1] I don't take my umbrella -> the sky is not raining

[2] I don't take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

[3] I take my umbrella -> The sky is not raining

[4] I take my umbrella -> The sky is raining

So now by using our human common sense and human logic
we can notice that the case [3] above is not logical
in reality, since if the sky is not raining the common sense
and human logic inferred from reality says that we have not
to take the umbrella , so this is why in the truth table
it is false, since as you already know that with the general rule
logically inferred from the truth table we have to "measure" and
"verify" the consistency of the system in the reality, it is how it is
used, and when the other cases of the truth table are thus measured with
common sense and human logic we notice that they are true, thus all the
cases of truth table permits us to logically infer the general rule of:
(p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q), and it permits
us to logically model the cases of the reality including the particular
case of causation and to verify the consistency and/or to optimize,
so as you are noticing that with the truth table and the general rule
logically inferred from the truth table we are like making a general
concept, it is like the real numbers in mathematics that are like
the general concept, read my below thoughts about it:

More philosophy about logic in philosophy and mathematics..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, and i will continu to invent
ideas from my brain, so I think logic in mathematics is really
interesting and there is something happening in logic in mathematics
that looks like the real numbers in mathematics, since i think that
from the general truth table of all the cases of the logical implication
we are getting a general law or general formula that is:

(p implies q) is equivalent to ((not p) or q)

And p and q are logical variables.

And here is the truth table of the logical implication:

p q p -> q
0 0 1
0 1 1
1 0 0
1 1 1

So i think by logically inferring the general rule of: (p implies q) is
equivalent to ((not p) or q), is like making the general "concept" that
applies to all the "particular" cases, so it also applies to causality
since this general rule is like a general concept that permits to
"model" all the cases in the truth table of the logical implication, so
i think this way of doing by generalizing and making like a general
concept is really powerful, this is why i think that real numbers in
mathematics are like a concept that was made
to model all the cases of the reality(read my below thoughts about it),
so now we are understanding more that logic in mathematics permits to
verify the logical consistency, so it is good for "reliability", and it
also permits to optimize since for example one logical proof can be more
"practical" or "faster" than another logical proof.

More of my philosophy about the human free will and more..

I think i am a philosopher that is smart, so if we ask
the following philosophical question:

Is there any free will ?

I think humans have no free will, since they have the strong tendency
with there smartness to act by being more and more perfection since they
have to adapt and to survive and they want to be great perfection so
that to solve most of humans problems and it is the goal of morality to
be this "perfection" at best, so i think that since humans have this
strong tendency so i think it is like there is no free will.

Note that the English dictionary defines "perfection" as: "the act or
process of perfecting"

Read here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfection

And i invite you to read my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/YZSYxV41-qI

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/OjDTCDiawJw

Also i invite you to read more of my thoughts of my philosophy here:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/ftf3lx5Rzxo

More philosophy about the real numbers in mathematics..

I will ask the following philosophical question:

Can we know more about real numbers in mathematics?

Notice that real numbers in mathematics is like a general "concept" that
permits to generally represent quantities or such, so you are then
noticing that this general concept has an independent life from the
reality, since notice that we can find some parts of the real numbers in
mathematics that are not real in reality but they are general and they
ensure that real numbers in mathematics work in all the cases in
reality, but notice that the real numbers in mathematics are also
inferred from reality, it is like a concept that is also inferred from
the reality, so when we say "1", i think that the "1" in real numbers is
inferred from the reality, but we can find other real numbers that are
not real and that generalize. It is like the concept of a "cat" or
"dog", if we look carefully at those concepts you will notice that they
are both the reality and not the reality, since a concept of a dog is an
abstraction that is not the reality, but it is also a generalization
that is the reality, so we are abstracting the concept so that to
generalize.

More philosophy about relativity of time and relativity..

I think that i am a philosopher that is smart, and i think
that there Einstein special relativity that determines that time is
relative, but i say that the zero in the axis of real numbers in
mathematics that represents a meaning is also "relative", i mean we can
say that we have zero "of" a thing, so you are then noticing that the
axis of real numbers is like a general "concept", i mean it is like a
general concept that permits to represent like a quantity or such, but
since as i made you understand (read my thoughts below) that the law of
causation doesn't apply to some things such as the wide space of the
universe, so we can not say there is "zero" thing, since for example
things such as the wide space of our universe or multiverse have always
existed, read my thoughts below of philosophy so that to understand it.