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

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:35 pm I may have stopped writing computer programs over a decade ago and don't remember that much, but this is just sad
You probably weren't very good at it if you self-identify as a Classical Logician/Aristotelian.
henry quirk
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

### "you need to assign a unique identifier to each unique element."

*I am right!

Again: where's my goddamned Nobel Prize!

#

"Good to meet you Henry12341"

'I am not a number! I am a free man!'

*actually, I don't know that I am...again: it's just seems to be a language/placeholder problem...right or not (in a logician's way) if I were lookin' to avoid false equivalencies I go for outlandish, freakishly long 'indentfiers'.
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:40 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:35 pm I may have stopped writing computer programs over a decade ago and don't remember that much, but this is just sad
You probably weren't very good at it if you self-identify as a Classical Logician/Aristotelian.
So what's this great relevation that you had?

Are you confused by the fact that there are two character strings, made of different particles located elsewhere in spacetime, and yet we get a "true" value?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:45 pm
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:40 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:35 pm I may have stopped writing computer programs over a decade ago and don't remember that much, but this is just sad
You probably weren't very good at it if you self-identify as a Classical Logician/Aristotelian.
So what's this great relevation that you had?

Are you confused by the fact that there are two character strings, made of different particles located elsewhere in spacetime, and yet we get a "true" value?

My point is that the law of identity is an error. And without it Classical Logic is dead too.

If 1 = 1 is true. Then Jane = Jane is true. Different Jane but hey...

Your brain will probably just context-switch here so it can protect your religion.
henry quirk
Posts: 9362
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
"If 1 = 1 is true. Then Jane = Jane is true. Different Jane but hey..."

And there's the problem: Jane to the left of me has a face like a foot, and Jane to the right of me can melt your heart with a glance. The placeholders are off-kilter 'logically' (but just fine in the 'real world' cuz I can see clearly the two Janes ain't the same).

Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 9:47 pm Sure. What's your point?

My point is that the law of identity is an error. And without it Classical Logic is dead too.

If 1 = 1 is true. Then Jane = Jane is true. Different Jane but hey...

Your brain will probably just context-switch here so it can protect your religion.
LOL

The computer compares the two strings. A true value doesn't mean that they are literally one and the same, it only says that their makeup is identical.

Kinda like how two protons have different locations in spacetime, yet their makeup is identical. Your computer program is merely a bigger more complicated version of this.

Of course the above does not violate the law of identity, only someone who is clueless about computers, would think that.

When will you realize that you are the fool here with an information religion
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:26 pm LOL

The computer compares the two strings. A true value doesn't mean that they are literally one and the same, it only says that their makeup is identical.
No shit, Sherlock.

Logic doesn't deal with literals. All logic deals with symbolic representations. Abstraction.

Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:26 pm Kinda like how two protons have different locations in spacetime, yet their makeup is identical. Your computer program is merely a more complicated version of this.
Hear yourself speak! TWO protons. TWO locations.
TWO Janes. TWO locations.

The TWO protons have identical charges.
Like the TWO Janes may have identical eye color.
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:26 pm Of course the above does not violate the law of identity, only someone who is clueless about computers, would think that.
Sounds like cognitive dissonance is taking hold. Quick! Context-switch!
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:12 pm Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)
"John is human" isn't normally interpreted as John = human, as I guess is suggested by "( A = C )".
In Aristotelian terms, the argument should read:
Premise 1. John is human;
Premise 2. Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.
And then, it's not valid as there is an undistributed middle.
Now, if we interpret the argument as follows:
Premise 1. John = human;
Premise 2. Jane = human;
Therefore, John = Jane.
Provided you define "=" properly, then, sure, it's valid.
Different arguments, though.
EB
Last edited by Speakpigeon on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Arising_uk
Posts: 12313
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Logik wrote:That's the problem. You can't. ...
Why is it a problem?
"John is human" and "John is Jane" are both grammatically correct even though unsound.

But if you are translating John is human to human(John), why aren't you translating "John is Jane" as Jane(John).
Depends how you wish to interpret proper names I guess. If you want to make them predicates and want 'Jane is John' as a fact then you'd add;

John(Jane) <-> Jane(John).
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Speakpigeon wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:31 pm
Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 6:12 pm Premise 1. John is human ( A = C )
Premise 2. Jane is human ( B = C )
By the transitive property: John is Jane (A = B)
"John is human" isn't normally interpreted as John = human, as I guess is suggested by "( A = C )".
In Aristotelian terms, the argument should read:
Premise 1. John is human;
Premise 2. Jane is human;
Therefore, John is Jane.
And then, it's not valid as there is an undistributed middle.
Now, if we interpret the argument as follows:
Premise 1. John = human;
Premise 2. Jane = human;
Therefore, John = Jane.
Provided you define "=" properly, then, sure, it's valid.
Different arguments, though.
EB
The problem is that you accept John is human (A = C => True) and Jane is human (B = C => True). Then you also have to accept the PROPOSITION (NOT conclusion)

A = B => True.

John is Jane.

Transitivity.
Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:29 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:26 pm LOL

The computer compares the two strings. A true value doesn't mean that they are literally one and the same, it only says that their makeup is identical.
No shit, Sherlock.

Logic doesn't deal with literals. All logic deals with symbolic representations. Abstraction.

Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:26 pm Kinda like how two protons have different locations in spacetime, yet their makeup is identical. Your computer program is merely a more complicated version of this.
Hear yourself speak! TWO protons. TWO locations.
TWO Janes. TWO locations.

The TWO protons have identical charges.
Like the TWO Janes may have identical eye color.
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:26 pm Of course the above does not violate the law of identity, only someone who is clueless about computers, would think that.
Sounds like cognitive dissonance is taking hold. Quick! Context-switch!
That's because elementary particles are all alike, not because the law of identity is broken.

Idiot much?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:36 pm That's because elementary particles are all alike, not because the law of identity is broken.

Idiot much?
ALIKE. and IDENTICAL mean different things.

Idiot much?
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:37 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:36 pm That's because elementary particles are all alike, not because the law of identity is broken.

Idiot much?
ALIKE. and IDENTICAL mean different things.

Idiot much?
So tell me where is the law of identity broken then?

You do realize that computers are built from particles, not abstractions, yes?
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:40 pm So tell me where is the law of identity broken then?
It lacks the semantics to express a unique identifier.

Jane = Jane => True

Different Jane.
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:40 pm You do realize that computers are built from particles, not abstractions, yes?
Forget the computers.

Last edited by Logik on Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Atla
Posts: 3066
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

### Re: Let me convince you that none of you are Classical logicians!

Logik wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:41 pm
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:40 pm So tell me where is the law of identity broken then?
It lacks the semantics to express a unique identifier.

Jane = Jane => True

Different Jane.
Atla wrote: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:40 pm You do realize that computers are built from particles, not abstractions, yes?
Forget the computers.