Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

[Speakpigeon]

You've mixed up two arguments.
The argument with "=" is valid, the argument with "is" is not valid.

That's because it's not an argument! It's a proposition.
SpeakPigeon is human (SpeakPigeon = Human).

You're the only one to understand this as a proposition.
EB

[Logik]

You're the only one to understand this as a proposition.

No I am not. There are many like me.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Propositions+as+Types

Notice that the 3rd link directs you to the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Coincidence?

[Eodnhoj7]

You've mixed up two arguments.
The argument with "=" is valid, the argument with "is" is not valid.

That's because it's not an argument! It's a proposition.
SpeakPigeon is human (SpeakPigeon = Human).

You're the only one to understand this as a proposition.
EB

False, besides is grounding axiom in computation, I am on the same page as him barring subtle language differences.

[Age]

'you' is NOT ready for that Truth yet. 'you' are incapable of UNDERSTANDING the 'I', for now.

When you can answer the question 'Who am 'I'?' properly and correctly, then the 'I' is defined. Until then 'I' will leave 'you' in your state of confusion and being unable to define the actual words that 'you' use.

I am not asking for Truth. I am asking for a definition.

If you can't define "I", then perhaps you will define "you"?

Since I am in a state of mental confusion and you are not then help me define the meaning of 'you' and 'I'.

These are YOUR words: That is your job, not mine. So best you follow what you prescribe to others.

I can only tell you Who and What the 'I' IS and who and what the 'you' IS from my perspective. Since you will NOT do that and 'you' are a closed and confused set of BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS, at the moment, you are obviously NOT yet ready to understand Who nor What the 'I' really IS.

[Logik]

You're the only one to understand this as a proposition.
EB

Computers are PHYSICAL things. They do actual PHYSICAL work.

Not only is 1 + 1 a proposition, but the RESULT of this proposition is calculated doing actual physical work. Moving electrons around. Measuring voltages etc.

If, using physics I come to calculate that 1+1 = 3 while mathematics says 1+1 = 2 which one do you throw away?

Are you trying to fit reality into Mathematics or Mathematics to reality?

[Speakpigeon]

You're the only one to understand this as a proposition.
EB

Computers are PHYSICAL things. They do actual PHYSICAL work. Not only is 1 + 1 a proposition, but the RESULT of this proposition is calculated doing actual physical work. Moving electrons around. Measuring voltages etc. If, using physics I come to calculate that 1+1 = 3 while mathematics says 1+1 = 2 which one do you throw away? Are you trying to fit reality into Mathematics or Mathematics to reality?

???
You genuinely believe that brains are not real physical things?
You would need to think first before making such wild claims.
Oh, wait, I know, you don't want to use your brain, right?
EB

[Logik]

You genuinely believe that brains are not real physical things?
You would need to think first before making such wild claims.
Oh, wait, I know, you don't want to use your brain, right?
EB

Brains ARE physical things.
And in the classical universe they ARE temporal.
And in the QM universe brains ARE quantum!

Your concept of non-contradiction is NEITHER temporal NOR quantum!
Your concept of a Boolean operators is NEITHER temporal NOR quantum!
Your concept of a "=" operator is NEITHER temporal NOR quantum!

Your concepts are idealized! That's an error. Everything in this universe is temporal/quantum!!!!!

When you implement an AND-gate in practice, using transistors - they operate using electrical waves!

Welcome to reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%8 ... le_duality

And this is PRECISELY what I was leveraging to violate the "law" of non-contradiction in a REAL PHYSICAL SYSTEM.

I hacked your brain!

[Speakpigeon]

So define "=" properly then! What are you waiting for??????
Define "=" so that the following ENGLISH statements evaluate correctly.
John is human (A = C => True)
Jane is human (B = C => True)
John is Jane (A = B => False)

No problem.
First, you've mixed up two different formalisms so we need to unpack the argument to try to make sense of it.
First, the argument with "=". It is valid:

A=C;
B=C;
Therefore A=B.

No problem.

Second, the argument with "is":

John is human;
Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.

It is ambiguous. So, to make sense of it, you can try different interpretations.

First, "is" interpreted as "∈":

John ∈ Human;
Jane ∈ Human;
Therefore, John ∈ Jane.

The conclusion may be true but the argument is not valid because of the undistributed middle. So, the conclusion, even if true, doesn't follow from the premises.

Second, you could interpret "is" as meaning "=", like this:

John = Human;
Jane = Human;
Therefore, John = Jane.

This is valid.

You can also interpret "is" in two different ways in the same argument, like this:

John ∈ Human;
Jane ∈ Human;
Therefore, John = Jane.

The conclusion may be true but the argument is not valid because of the undistributed middle. So, the conclusion, even if true, doesn't follow from the premises.
This last interpretation is what normal people with a brain do without even thinking about it when they come across this argument.

Tell me if you see a problem here.
EB

[Logik]

Second, the argument with "is":

John is human;
Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.

It is ambiguous. So, to make sense of it, you can try different interpretations.

It's not ambiguous in Type theory OR in English. A 5 year old can disambiguate it.

Python can disambiguate it.

First, "is" means "∈":

John ∈ Human;
Jane ∈ Human;
Therefore, John ∈ Jane.

The conclusion may be true but the argument is not valid because of the undistributed middle. So, the conclusion, even if true, doesn't follow from the premises.

???????

I am just sitting around the TV drinking wine with John and Jane, talking shit. Those are FACTUAL PROPOSITIONS ABOUT REALITY.
I am not arguing with anybody!!!!!

John is human is true. ( A = C )
Jane is human is true. ( B = C )
John is not Jane is also true. ( A != B )

Because they ARE factual statements about reality. They ARE consistent. There is no contradiction.
Indeed the above logical grammar does NOT result in a contradiction in Type theory.

But it sure blows up in your logic.

[Speakpigeon]

You genuinely believe that brains are not real physical things?
You would need to think first before making such wild claims.
Oh, wait, I know, you don't want to use your brain, right?
EB

Brains ARE physical things.

What a relief!

Your concept of non-contradiction is NEITHER temporal NOR quantum!
Your concept of a Boolean operators is NEITHER temporal NOR quantum!
Your concept of a "=" operator is NEITHER temporal NOR quantum!

Sure, and that why its's called "logic" and not quantum mechanics!

Your concepts are idealized!

No, they're not because that's how the brain works, at least when it is fully functional and operational.
Unless you could prove otherwise.
This is why we need mathematics, physics and computers to go beyond logic. Remember, logic is fundamental but it is simple. Everything complicated is not logic.
So I guess, basically, you just don't like logic, for some reason, so instead you do computers. You should have called yourself "Komputer"!

That's an error. Everything in this universe is temporal/quantum!!!!! When you implement an AND-gate in practice, using transistors - they operate using electrical waves! And this is PRECISELY what I was leveraging to violate the "law" of non-contradiction in a REAL PHYSICAL SYSTEM. I hacked your brain!

Well, you still have to prove anything.
However, since you don't do logic, you can't prove anything.
EB

[Speakpigeon]

Second, the argument with "is":

John is human;
Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.

It is ambiguous. So, to make sense of it, you can try different interpretations.

It's not ambiguous in Type theory OR in English. A 5 year old can disambiguate it.

Python can disambiguate it.

First, "is" means "∈":

John ∈ Human;
Jane ∈ Human;
Therefore, John ∈ Jane.

The conclusion may be true but the argument is not valid because of the undistributed middle. So, the conclusion, even if true, doesn't follow from the premises.

???????

I am just sitting around the TV drinking wine with John and Jane, talking shit. Those are FACTUAL PROPOSITIONS ABOUT REALITY.
I am not arguing with anybody!!!!!

John is human is true. ( A = C )
Jane is human is true. ( B = C )
John is not Jane is also true. ( A != B )

Because they ARE factual statements about reality. They ARE consistent. There is no contradiction.
Indeed the above logical grammar does NOT result in a contradiction in Type theory.

But it sure blows up in your logic.

Come back when you understand logic.
EB

[Logik]

Sure, and that why its's called "logic" and not quantum mechanics!

You don't use logic to express statements about the quantum world?

Strange!

No, they're not because that's how the brain works, at least when it is fully functional and operational.

A temporal/quantum brain works with idealized concepts? You don't think you should change that?

Why are you trying to make reality fit to your language?
Why don't you adjust your language to fit reality?

This is why we need mathematics, physics and computers to go beyond logic. Remember, logic is fundamental but it is simple. Everything complicated is not logic.

The universe is complicated.
Logic is simple.

You use logic to talk about the universe.

Problem?

So I guess, basically, you just don't like logic, for some reason, so instead you do computers. You should have called yourself "Komputer"!

Because what I do IS logic/mathematics/physics/metaphysics.

It's the same damn thing.

[Logik]

Second, the argument with "is":

It is ambiguous. So, to make sense of it, you can try different interpretations.

It's not ambiguous in Type theory OR in English. A 5 year old can disambiguate it.

Python can disambiguate it.

First, "is" means "∈":

The conclusion may be true but the argument is not valid because of the undistributed middle. So, the conclusion, even if true, doesn't follow from the premises.

???????

I am just sitting around the TV drinking wine with John and Jane, talking shit. Those are FACTUAL PROPOSITIONS ABOUT REALITY.
I am not arguing with anybody!!!!!

John is human is true. ( A = C )
Jane is human is true. ( B = C )
John is not Jane is also true. ( A != B )

Because they ARE factual statements about reality. They ARE consistent. There is no contradiction.
Indeed the above logical grammar does NOT result in a contradiction in Type theory.

But it sure blows up in your logic.

Come back when you understand logic.
EB

I don't want to understand your logic. My logic is better.

It resembles the way people think AND the way people speak AND the way reality IS far better than your abortion.

Apples are Oranges apparently

[Speakpigeon]

But it sure blows up in your logic.

Come back when you understand logic.

I don't want to understand your logic.

To try and prove Aristotelian logic wrong, you'd need understand it.

My logic is better. It resembles the way people think AND the way people speak AND the way reality IS far better than your abortion.

Definitely not.
Aristotelian logic exists since 2,400 years ago. All thinkers during this period have accepted it. You can also sample people, ordinary people without any formal logic training, and you'll see that they understand and accept all of Aristotelian logic, including the Law of Identity and the Law of non-contradiction.

Apples are Oranges apparently

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.
EB

[Logik]

Apples are Oranges apparently

You haven't proved anything about Aristotelian logic.
EB

Are two empty sets identical?