(0=0)=(1=1)
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
I take it that you gave up.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Why do you say that?
I am following your lead.
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
You've been arguing against the law of excluded middle.Skepdick wrote:I am following your lead.
The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".
You argued -- despite your claim that you didn't argue -- that the law of excluded middle is false by providing "This sentence is false" as a counter-example. That was your example of a proposition that is neither true nor false.
My response was that "This sentence is false" is NOT a proposition. I said that it is NOT a proposition because in order for something to be a proposition it must have a reference to a portion of reality (subject) and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality (predicate.) "This sentence is false" lacks the former, and thus, the thing that is attached to it is NOT a proposition.
You responded by saying that the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false" is "itself". I asked you to explain what that "itself" refers to. Does it refer to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters that is "T-h-i-s s-e-n-t-e-n-c-e i-s f-a-l-s-e", or does it refer to something else e.g. some sort of non-linguistic entity that is attached to the sentence? If it's referring to something else, what is that something else? You responded by asking "You don't know what the word "itself" means?" I responded by saying that I know what it means but that I want you to describe to us the thing your word is referring to. You're using a symbol to refer to something. That symbol is "itself". I want you to show us that your symbol is referring to something real -- something that exists. That's where you're currently at. That's your current task. The stage is yours.
You can say that "This sentence is false" refers to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters. That's perfectly fine. In that case, you have to note that you're saying that the sentence "This sentence is false" has a property called "truth value" and that the value of that property is "false". But does is it really have that property? How do we establish that? What does it mean for a sentence to have truth value? A sentence is said to have truth value if and only if a proposition is attached to it. But how do we know whether or not a proposition is attached to a sentence? A proposition is attached to a sentence if and only if what's attached to that sentence has the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality ("subject") and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality ("predicate".) So if what's attached to the sentence "This sentence is false" is indeed a proposition, what portion of reality is it referring to? You can't say "itslef" because that would be running in circles. Because you can't identify the portion of reality the sentence is referring to, you are logically obligated to accept that the sentence is not a proposition and that because of that the law of excluded middle does not apply to it.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
OK. This is getting tiresome now. What will it take for you to actually understand and accept that I am not arguing?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:17 am You've been arguing against the law of excluded middle.
I've said it how many times now. It's as literal as I can get. Why is it so difficult for you?
That's called an anthropomorphism. The law of excluded middle doesn't say anything. Humans say stuff.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:17 am The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".
You believe THAT for every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false. Go ahead and justify your belief.
I don't subscribe to your variety of propositional logic! In my paradigm (which is much, much broader than your paradigm!) propositions are types; and the type of a proposition does not have to be a Boolean!
It may be the case that some propositions are Booleans, but that's not the case in general.
No, I didn't. Refusing to believe in the the law of excluded middle doesn't mean it's false - it means I that I don't accept it! It means that I don't subscribe to it as a principle.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:17 am You argued -- despite your claim that you didn't argue -- that the law of excluded middle is false
Of course, this will be difficult for you to understand because you seem like the kind of person whose brain shuts down once I take your words away from you.
You insist on using the terminology "arguing" despite the fact that I am not arguing.
You insist on using the terminology "true" and "false" despite the fact that logical principles are not "true" or "false". They are simply accepted or rejected. Which is synonymous with "believed" and "not believed".
Nitpicker.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:17 am by providing "This sentence is false" as a counter-example. That was your example of a proposition that is neither true nor false.
My response was that "This sentence is false" is NOT a proposition.
The law of excluded middle is neither true nor false.
Here is your proposition that is neither true nor false.
I am really really tired of having to explain this to you. I am USING intuitionistic logic. You are USING classical logic.
Why are you so desperately trying to force me to use your logic?
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Firstly, that's not true. The law of excluded middle is formulated as "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:17 amYou've been arguing against the law of excluded middle.Skepdick wrote:I am following your lead.
The law of excluded middle says that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".
Secondly. What is about to follow is NOT an argument! It is a direct empirical observation of a counter-example to the "law" according to which: either it's true that the ball is white; OR it's true that the ball is not white.
Now observe the damn ball!
It's neither true nor false that the ball is white AND it's neither true nor false that the ball is NOT white.
The "law" of excluded middle implies that the negation of a falsehood produces truth. It is very stupid, naive and harmful to think that way. Of course, idiots (who subscribe to classical logic and excluded middle) think exactly that way - they think proving other people wrong makes them right. That's Philosophy in a nutshell for you.
I refuse to participate on those terms - you refuse to reject excluded middle. Is there much more that we can say to each other except "Godspeed"?
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
You're now complaining about other people not bowing down to you. Ins't it ironic?Skepdick wrote:OK. This is getting tiresome now. What will it take for you to actually understand and accept that I am not arguing?
I've said it how many times now. It's as literal as I can get. Why is it so difficult for you?
If you want to prove others wrong, you have to make a serious effort in that direction (sort of like what I am doing here in this thread which is tirelessly addressing your points.) If you want to prove me wrong, you have to first UNDERSTAND my claim. And once you do that, you have to PRESENT A CONVINCING ARGUMENT. You are pretty bad at both.
To argue against someone's claim means to make an effort to show that their claim is false. You tried arguing [yes, you did] that you're not trying to show that my claim is false merely that it is incomplete. And that's not true because if there is a single true non-belief then my claim "Only beliefs have truth value" is false (since my claim implies that there are no true non-beliefs.)
What you're doing is called "Taking things too literally". Yes, the law isn't saying stuff in the literal sense of the word, and I am sure you know that, so why are you trying to make an issue out of that? This is one of the reasons you've got that "Extremely uncooperative, tries hard to disagree about everything" reputation.Skepdick wrote:That's called an anthropomorphism. The law of excluded middle doesn't say anything. Humans say stuff.
Surprise surprise, the way you define words is irrelevant. Why? Because you're addressing other people's claims -- not yours. It is how OTHER people define their words that matters. Specifcally, what matters is the way the word "proposition" is defined in the statement "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Again, if you want to argue against a claim, which you very much do, despite your lack of self-awareness, you have to understand that claim. Imbuing it with your own definitions would be misunderstanding it.I don't subscribe to your variety of propositional logic! In my paradigm (which is much, much broader than your paradigm!) propositions are types; and the type of a proposition does not have to be a Boolean!
It may be the case that some propositions are Booleans, but that's not the case in general.
Well, if there's a single exception to the rule, the rule is false. You have found an exception, that exception "This sentence is false", which means the rule is false. Perhaps you don't want to derive that conclusion yourself (which would be an issue of yours) but that's pretty much what follows.No, I didn't. Refusing to believe in the the law of excluded middle doesn't mean it's false - it means I that I don't accept it! It means that I don't subscribe to it as a principle.
And that's actually irrelevant . . . the point is that you said that "This sentence is false" is an exception to the rule. And that's not true.
You very much do. It's called lack of self-awareness.You insist on using the terminology "arguing" despite the fact that I am not arguing.
They are very much true or false.You insist on using the terminology "true" and "false" despite the fact that logical principles are not "true" or "false". They are simply accepted or rejected.
Not true at all.The law of excluded middle is neither true nor false.
You are using feminine logic a.k.a. illogic. You are a feminized male.I am really really tired of having to explain this to you. I am USING intuitionistic logic. You are USING classical logic.
Yeah, why am I forcing you to grow a pair and be a man.Why are you so desperately trying to force me to use your logic?
True.Firstly, that's not true. The law of excluded middle is formulated as "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true".
It is.What is about to follow is NOT an argument!
So you decided to forget your existing counter-example . . . I guess it's too difficult to show us the portion of reality it refers to.It's neither true nor false that the ball is white AND it's neither true nor false that the ball is NOT white.
What does it mean for a ball to be white? You have to define that first. And you didn't do that so far (I am not surprised at all.) Balls are physical objects that consist of more than one part where each part has its own color. So you have to tell us what it means to speak of a color of a collection of parts. If it means "All parts are certain color", then the ball isn't white . . . it isn't white because it's not entirely white. If it means "Some parts are certain color", then the ball is white . . . it is white because some of its parts are indeed white. If it means "More than half of its parts are certain color", then the ball is not white because, as far as I can tell, it's more orange than it's white. If it means "The average color of its parts is certain color", then the ball is not white because the average color is some sort of light orange.
You are, once again, playing word games.
It does and it's true.The "law" of excluded middle implies that the negation of a falsehood produces truth.
The opposite is the case.It is very stupid, naive and harmful to think that way.
If you prove another person's belief on some issue to be false, it does not necessarily follow that your own belief on that issue is true. The law of excluded middle has little to do with that since it concerns itself only with opposite, mutually-exclusive, beliefs.Of course, idiots (who subscribe to classical logic and excluded middle) think exactly that way - they think proving other people wrong makes them right.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Idiot. Is ssking you to stop misinterpreting my actions as "arguing" the same as bowing down to me?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmYou're now complaining about other people not bowing down to you. Ins't it ironic?Skepdick wrote:OK. This is getting tiresome now. What will it take for you to actually understand and accept that I am not arguing?
I've said it how many times now. It's as literal as I can get. Why is it so difficult for you?
If you are not interested in understanding then sure - I am <insert whatever fucking word you feel like here>.
I don't! I am neither arguing; nor trying to prove you wrong!
I am only pursuing mutual understanding. Again... Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
Fine! But if I don't want to prove you wrong (and I don't!), then I don't have to understand your claim. Right?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm , you have to make a serious effort in that direction (sort of like what I am doing here in this thread which is tirelessly addressing your points.) If you want to prove me wrong, you have to first UNDERSTAND my claim.
How does somebody who doesn't argue (me!) go about presenting a "convincing argument" exactly ?!?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm And once you do that, you have to PRESENT A CONVINCING ARGUMENT. You are pretty bad at both.
In what language must I communicate to you the fact that I do not adhere to your protocols/customs for interaction and communication?
Seeming as I neither argue, nor use your conceptuion of "truth" or "falsehood" - I don't see how that's going to happen.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm To argue against someone's claim means to make an effort to show that their claim is false.
"Truth" is a sufficient description for a particular purpose. And you haven't made any purpose; or criteria for sufficiency explicit!
Dude! You are way too fixated on what's true/false and not focused enough on effective communication and mutual understanding.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm You tried arguing [yes, you did] that you're not trying to show that my claim is false merely that it is incomplete. And that's not true because if there is a single true non-belief then my claim "Only beliefs have truth value" is false (since my claim implies that there are no true non-beliefs.)
No, I am not arguing or trying to show that your claim is false.
You may believe that "only beliefs have truth value" but I don't. That doesn't mean that I believe that "only beliefs have truth value" is false! Because I don't use your notions of true/false!
But so what? Either you understand THAT I don't believe that "only beliefs have truth value" or you don't understand that.
I am "making an issue out of that" because a human (e.g NOT a law!) can SAY that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true";Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm What you're doing is called "Taking things too literally". Yes, the law isn't saying stuff in the literal sense of the word, and I am sure you know that, so why are you trying to make an issue out of that? This is one of the reasons you've got that "Extremely uncooperative, tries hard to disagree about everything" reputation.
OR
Another human can SAY that "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is false".
And some other human can SAY that those are equivalent statements; and some other human can SAY that those are NOT equivalent statements.
Neither of those things are "laws"; or authorities of any kind for humans can say whatever the hell they want!
No, I am not. I am rejecting your claims, not addressing them.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm Surprise surprise, the way you define words is irrelevant. Why? Because you're addressing other people's claims -- not yours.
I don't give a shit HOW you define your words if I don't know WHY you define your words.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm It is how OTHER people define their words that matters.
For all I know we use a different definition for "understanding"; and I don't really care what your definition is untill you tell me WHY you want to "understand". What will "understanding" enable you to do that you are currently unable to do?
If we are talking cross-purposes misunderstanding is guaranteed either way.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm Specifcally, what matters is the way the word "proposition" is defined in the statement "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Again, if you want to argue against a claim, which you very much do, despite your lack of self-awareness, you have to understand that claim. Imbuing it with your own definitions would be misunderstanding it.
You know... because "true" is a description (or if you want - definition) sufficient for a particular purpose.
That's not true. Rules don't have to be universally applicable. General applicability is sufficient. Contextual; or domain-specific applicability is sufficient also.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm Well, if there's a single exception to the rule, the rule is false.
You understand the difference between contextually, generally and universally true; right?
No, it doesn't. It only means that the rule is not universal. That doesn't mean the rule is not generally useful and it certainly doesn't mean that the rule is false.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm You have found an exception, that exception "This sentence is false", which means the rule is false.
A rule is only "false" if it can never be used.
It only follows if you think in dichotomies. Which I don't.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm Perhaps you don't want to derive that conclusion yourself (which would be an issue of yours) but that's pretty much what follows.
Very well then, if it's not an exception to the rule then assign it a truth-value.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm And that's actually irrelevant . . . the point is that you said that "This sentence is false" is an exception to the rule. And that's not true.
You are literally using a logic-system which doesn't allow for reflection and you want to preach to me about self-awareness?!? Classical logic literally lacks the ability to do introspection and you want to talk to me about self-awareness ?!?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmYou very much do. It's called lack of self-awareness.You insist on using the terminology "arguing" despite the fact that I am not arguing.
You don't seem neither able nor capable of self-awareness or self-modification. You know - given your inability to correct your beliefs with respect to excluded middle.
You are welcome to subscribe to that belief if it works for you, but it doesn't work for me.
Not true (at all) in your system.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmNot true at all.The law of excluded middle is neither true nor false.
True (oftne enough) in mine.
Well, you know. If you are so insistent on binary classification then the least you can do is produce a complete classification rule which correctly classifies "males" and "females".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmYou are using feminine logic a.k.a. illogic. You are a feminized male.I am really really tired of having to explain this to you. I am USING intuitionistic logic. You are USING classical logic.
Of course, non-idiots understand that perfect binary classiffication is not possible in this universe.
I have a pair. And a penis. And the Y chromosome. And the wife. And the children. And I love tits, guns and beer. And I can beat my chest and proclaim my mucho masculinity. And swing my dick to prove it's bigger than yours!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmYeah, why am I forcing you to grow a pair and be a man.Why are you so desperately trying to force me to use your logic?
Is that what makes me a "man"; or do you have some other definition in mind?
I agree under protest.
I didn't forget my existing counter-example, but it was too higher-grade for you to handle it.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmSo you decided to forget your existing counter-example . . . I guess it's too difficult to show us the portion of reality it refers to.It's neither true nor false that the ball is white AND it's neither true nor false that the ball is NOT white.
So I produced another counter-example - one that shouldn't tax your intellectual capacity as much.
Jesus, fucking christ! Is this kindergarten?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm What does it mean for a ball to be white? You have to define that first.
What does it mean for this sentence to NOT be red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be neither red nor NOT red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be neither red nor NOT red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be neither red nor NOT red?
What does it mean for this sentence to be red?
No, I don't. You fucking sophist. A ball is a ball is a ball. Whether it's a unit; or made up of infinitely many parts. The parts on the ball may be made of parts themselves. And those parts are made of parts. And those parts are made of parts.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm And you didn't do that so far (I am not surprised at all.) Balls are physical objects that consist of more than one part where each part has its own color. So you have to tell us what it means to speak of a color of a collection of parts.
So it's parts of parts of parts of parts of parts of parts. Do you want me to tell you about those also?
Would you like me to give you the quantum wave function for the ball also?
Ohhh. You want to play the stupid-pedant game? OK... Are you talking about paint color or light color?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm If it means "All parts are certain color", then the ball isn't white . . .
Because if you are talking about the electromagnetic spectrum then all colors combined means "white".
But if you are talking about chemical paint then all colors combined means "black".
So do you want to define what it means for a part to be "certain color" ?
What do you mean by "certain" anyway?
What do you mean by "color"? Are gamma rays a color? They are all waves on the EM spectrum after all!
And what do you mean by "define"?
I am playing word games?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pm If it means "Some parts are certain color", then the ball is white . . . it is white because some of its parts are indeed white. If it means "More than half of its parts are certain color", then the ball is not white because, as far as I can tell, it's more orange than it's white. If it means "The average color of its parts is certain color", then the ball is not white because the average color is some sort of light orange.
You are, once again, playing word games.
Oh oh oh ! But did you know that there is no such color as "white" !
Sure. Please demonstrate how you get from The color of this sentence is blue. to The color of this sentence is red via negation? Is red the negation of blue or something?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmIt does and it's true.The "law" of excluded middle implies that the negation of a falsehood produces truth.
I have no idea what "the opposite" refers to. Just like I have no idea what "the opposite of blue" refers to.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmThe opposite is the case.It is very stupid, naive and harmful to think that way.
It has everything to do with that; and of course it follows!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:40 pmIf you prove another person's belief on some issue to be false, it does not necessarily follow that your own belief on that issue is true.Of course, idiots (who subscribe to classical logic and excluded middle) think exactly that way - they think proving other people wrong makes them right.
The law of excluded middle has little to do with that since it concerns itself only with opposite, mutually-exclusive, beliefs.
If you believe P then anyone disagreeing with you necessarily believes not-P. What else could they believe in order to disagree?!?
So obviously if they prove P wrong then their proposition (not-P) must be right! Excluded middle necessitates it!
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
It's a universal rule. It says "For every proposition". It does not say "For some propositions" or "For most propositions". It says "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Therefore, if that rule does not apply to EVERY proposition, it's a false rule. That's what you're claiming. You're saying that the rule does not apply to every proposition because there are propositions that are neither true nor false. I am telling you that it does and that your counter-example "This sentence is false" is not a proposition. The only reason "This sentence is false" is neither true nor false is because it is not a proposition (in the same way that physical objects such as dogs aren't, and thus, are neither true nor false.)Skepdick wrote:It only means that the rule is not universal.
Nah. That's not what the word "false" means. "False" does not mean "unusable".A rule is only "false" if it can never be used.
You refuse to understand that it follows because you have this irrational hatred of binary classification. You are basically refusing to deal with it in any way, shape or form. It makes it difficult for you to cooperate with others. But it's also a handicap for you -- it makes you dumb.It only follows if you think in dichotomies. Which I don't.
Binary classification, like classfication of any arity other than 2, is a tool that is useful in certain situations and useless in others. It's not a proposition, so it has no truth value; it makes no sense to say that it's true or that it's false. It's really only a method -- a method for classifying things; how can a method be true or false? It can't be. How you're going to classify things -- i.e. how many classes you're going to use and what rules you will use to determine what thing goes where -- is determined by your needs. So sometimes, you will use binary classification; binary classification involves 2 classes. At other times, you will use centesimal classification; centesimal classification involves 100 classes. If all you want to know is whether something is completely true or not completely true, you will use binary classification as you really only need 2 classes: "true" and "not true" (= "false".) If you want to know the degree to which something is true, not merely whether it's completely true or not, you may use centesimal classification: 0% true, 1% true, 2% true, ..., 100% true. All in all, you have a poor understanding of what classification is and you confuse binary classification with the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy". They are unrelated -- except in some superficial ways -- and your brain is seeing a connection that does not really exist between the two.
It's not a proposition, so I can't assign it a truth value. But note that the law of excluded middle only talks about proposition. It's not talking about any kind of thing. It says 'For every proposition". It does not say "For every thing".Very well then, if it's not an exception to the rule then assign it a truth-value.
You have a feminine mind. Perhaps you enjoy pretending to be a female, I don't know. Or maybe you actually feel like one -- a homosexual one? I don't know. But either way, your mind is feminized.Is that what makes me a "man"
I wasn't asking for a different counter-example. I was asking for you to show us the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false". Doesn't matter how higher-grade it is for me to handle it.I didn't forget my existing counter-example, but it was too higher-grade for you to handle it.
So you're not going to provide a definition? I am not surprised.Jesus, fucking christ! Is this kindergarten?
You very much do. Otherwise, your counter-example is pointless because I can;t tell you whether your statement "This ball is white" is a proposition or not; and if it's a proposition, whether it's true or false.No, I don't.
I have a feeling that you actually don't really understand what definitions are, how they work. You can always prove us wrong by demonstrating your knowledge but I highly doubt it you will do such a thing.
Nah. That's your cup of tea. I am just trying to tell you that whether or not your statement is true depends on the meaning you assigned it. So without telling us what that meaning is, I can't say much about your statement.You want to play the stupid-pedant game?
You are the one who should provide the definition. Not me. It's your statement, not mine.Are you talking about paint color or light color?
Because if you are talking about the electromagnetic spectrum then all colors combined means "white".
But if you are talking about chemical paint then all colors combined means "black".
So do you want to define what it means for a part to be "certain color" ?
What do you mean by "certain" anyway?
What do you mean by "color"? Are gamma rays a color? They are all waves on the EM spectrum after all!
And what do you mean by "define"?
But if you're going to play dumb by intentionally asking dumb, pointless, questions, then fine; but in that case, let it be known that Skepdick has given up discussing these things.
There is.But did you know that there is no such color as "white" !
Given your tendency to arbitrarily define words such as "red" and "blue", I am not going to be answering this question until you define them first.Please demonstrate how you get from The color of this sentence is blue. to The color of this sentence is red via negation? Is red the negation of blue or something?
Let me try to explain. Suppose you believe P. Suppose that P is "Joe Biden has two heads". Suppose that a friend of yours has proven you wrong i.e. that he's demonstrated that P is false. According to the law of excluded middle, it follows that your friend is obliged to believe not-P. And that's true. However, the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that what your friend believes on that particular issue is true. For example, if your friend believes Q and Q is "Joe Biden has three heads", the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that Q is true. It merely says that not-P is true. Your friend has merely proven that not-P is true and not-P in this case is "Joe Biden does not have two heads". He has NOT proven that his own claim, which is "Joe Biden has three heads", is true. That's all I said. Thankyouverymuch.It has everything to do with that; and of course it follows!
If you believe P then anyone disagreeing with you necessarily believes not-P. What else could they believe in order to disagree?!?
So obviously if they prove P wrong then their proposition (not-P) must be right! Excluded middle necessitates it!
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
"It" doesn't say anything. You defined it that way. You defined it for "every" proposition a priori of having personally examined "every" proposition and you later learned that your scope is too broad.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amIt's a universal rule. It says "For every proposition". It does not say "For some propositions" or "For most propositions". It says "For every proposition, either that proposition or its negation is true". Therefore, if that rule does not apply to EVERY proposition, it's a false rule. That's what you're claiming.Skepdick wrote:It only means that the rule is not universal.
I don't give a shit what assertions you make about the "truth" or "falsity" of your definitions; as long as you recalibrate their scope based on new evidence.
Demonstrate that you are capable of learning/adapting/self-improving as new information arrives. Even if it means that you have to slaughter your sacred cows. Be a fucking scientist!
Unless you wish to confess that your rules are not subject to empirical revision?
Unless you want to confess to being a universal authority on rules.
No!!!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am You're saying that the rule does not apply to every proposition because there are propositions that are neither true nor false.
I am saying that the rule applies to every proposition, except the propositions it fails to apply to!
So you do think yourself to be an authority on rules? The ruler of universal rules! God himself! The fucking hubris that your rules apply to my propositions! Have you considered the possibility that you have an ego problem?
Your insistence that your "rules" apply universally doesn't really change the fact that you didn't account for uncovering exceptions in future.
Your rule was unfalsifiable! Not even wrong.
Reality decides, not you. Right ?!? Be a fucking scientist and make your logic empirical/self-evolving! If your ego allows it.
Of course it is! I am the one who expressed it - and I expressed a proposition. Just because you can't recognise it for what it is doesn't mean it isn't what it is. The part of reality the proposition refers to is the truth-value of the belief that "This sentence is false".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am and that your counter-example "This sentence is false" is not a proposition.
But since you are struggling with abstract reasoning let me rewrite it (in a manner which preserves its meaning): I propose that I believe that this sentence (which expresses a proposition; and belief) is false.
It's a proposition AND a belief about a portion of reality! It satisfies all of your criteria, and yet you can't assign it a truth-value. So strange!
Next you are going to tell me that the sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." is not a definition of "blue".
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am The only reason "This sentence is false" is neither true nor false is because it is not a proposition
That's not true. The reason that the proposition is neither true nor false is because not all propositions are decidable.
Surely you have heard of the halting problem; and Godel's incompleteness theorems? The implication follows directly.
If every proposition was decidable, then you can solve the halting problem
If you can solve the halting problem, then you can solve all 6 Millenium Prize problems and claim your $6 million dollars.
Idiot. The expression "Dog" when coupled with a referent is always a proposition!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am (in the same way that physical objects such as dogs aren't, and thus, are neither true nor false.)
Dog:
But because you are stupid I'll rewrite it for you as "I propose that this is a dog: "
Dog:
But because you are stupid I'll rewrite it for you as "I propose that this is a dog: "
You keep missing the damn point about proposition which combine the referer and referent into one in the form of self-reference!
RED:█
But because you are stupid I'll rewrite it for you as "I propose that this is color is red: █"
And I'll rewrite it again (while preserving its meaning): RED
Then understand it via its synonyms.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amNah. That's not what the word "false" means. "False" does not mean "unusable".A rule is only "false" if it can never be used.
Never applicable. Universally inapplicable. Void in all contexts. Never needed. Purposeless. Unusable. Unnecessary. Redundant. Superfluous.
That's how I am using "false" as an adjective for characterising rules.
I don't have an "irrational hatred" of binary classification. I just don't subscribe to it universally.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am You refuse to understand that it follows because you have this irrational hatred of binary classification.
I don't aspire to categorize the uncategorizable universe.
That's not true. I am only "refusing to deal with it" as a universal.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am You are basically refusing to deal with it in any way, shape or form.
I am happy to use any form of classification in the context of a particular pragmatic goal.
Some classification-schemes are fit for purpose. Some aren't. What is it that you are trying to classify and why?
That description fits you much better than it fits me.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am It makes it difficult for you to cooperate with others. But it's also a handicap for you -- it makes you dumb.
When I sit at the metaphorical "classification table" I don't bring any pre-existing categories to the party - I start without prejudice on how to classify the universe. The collective goal determines the necessary classification scheme - not me.
I will hapilly negotiate all categories as part of the discourse. Can't say the same about you...
Precisely. Even you agree that it's not universal!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am Binary classification, like classfication of any arity other than 2, is a tool that is useful in certain situations and useless in others.
So why do you keep bringing the categories/prejudices of "true" and "false" to the classification table?!?
Only Boolean propositions that have truth-values. Not all propositions are Boolean. Non-boolean propositions can have other values.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am It's not a proposition, so it has no truth value; it makes no sense to say that it's true or that it's false.
Of course, if the only logic you understand is classical logic - none of this will make any sense to you.
Thanks for the unnecessary explanation. Have you heard of the concept of a subobject classifier?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am It's really only a method -- a method for classifying things; how can a method be true or false? It can't be. How you're going to classify things -- i.e. how many classes you're going to use and what rules you will use to determine what thing goes where -- is determined by your needs. So sometimes, you will use binary classification; binary classification involves 2 classes. At other times, you will use centesimal classification; centesimal classification involves 100 classes. If all you want to know is whether something is completely true or not completely true, you will use binary classification as you really only need 2 classes: "true" and "not true" (= "false".) If you want to know the degree to which something is true, not merely whether it's completely true or not, you may use centesimal classification: 0% true, 1% true, 2% true, ..., 100% true. All in all, you have a poor understanding of what classification is and you confuse binary classification with the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy". They are unrelated -- except in some superficial ways -- and your brain is seeing a connection that does not really exist between the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subobject_classifier
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/subobject+classifier
It's a general account for all classifiers. Even those which work with infinite number of categories.
It is a proposition; and yet the "law" does not apply.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amIt's not a proposition, so I can't assign it a truth value. But note that the law of excluded middle only talks about proposition.Very well then, if it's not an exception to the rule then assign it a truth-value.
I have a mind. Not sure why you think it has a gender. Perhaps you are willing to present us with your gender-classification rule for minds?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amYou have a feminine mind. Perhaps you enjoy pretending to be a female, I don't know. Or maybe you actually feel like one -- a homosexual one? I don't know. But either way, your mind is feminized.Is that what makes me a "man"
Won't hold my breath.
I took a screenshot and highlighted the refered portion of reality for you. Because the idea of "the sentence itself' is too higher grade for you to handle.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amI wasn't asking for a different counter-example. I was asking for you to show us the referred portion of reality in "This sentence is false". Doesn't matter how higher-grade it is for me to handle it.I didn't forget my existing counter-example, but it was too higher-grade for you to handle it.
So you are not going to provide a definition for "definition"?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amSo you're not going to provide a definition? I am not surprised.Jesus, fucking christ! Is this kindergarten?
I am not surprised either.
AHHHHHHH! No wonder we are misscommunicating. You fucking idiot.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amYou very much do. Otherwise, your counter-example is pointless because I can;t tell you whether your statement "This ball is white" is a proposition or not; and if it's a proposition, whether it's true or false.No, I don't.
You aren't supposed to tell whether it's a proposition! You are supposed to hear, listen and understand THAT it's a proposition. I am the one doing the telling.
You aren't supposed to tell whether it's true or false! You are supposed to hear, listen and understand THAT it's true, false or undecidable. I am doing the telling.
I have a feeling you should look in the mirror. You can't even define "define" because the entire paradigm of self-definition is completely foreign to you!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am I have a feeling that you actually don't really understand what definitions are, how they work.
Mean while, I've tried to explain to you how self-reference/recursion works... It doesn't seem like computer science; or programming language theory is your thing.
I've been demonstrating it all along. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am You can always prove us wrong by demonstrating your knowledge but I highly doubt it you will do such a thing.
Here is a relevant part for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory
It's almost as if computer science deals with the general notiona of definability and recursion; or something.Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, computer science, and the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has since expanded to include the study of generalized computability and definability.
And it's almost as if I know that by asking you to define "define".
And I am trying to tell you that the meaning I assugn to my statements is "true". In a boolean setting.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amNah. That's your cup of tea. I am just trying to tell you that whether or not your statement is true depends on the meaning you assigned it.You want to play the stupid-pedant game?
Yes. Because you aren't supposed to tell. You are supposed to listen and understand my statements.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am So without telling us what that meaning is, I can't say much about your statement.
I defined it ostensively. Did you miss the definition?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am You are the one who should provide the definition. Not me. It's your statement, not mine.
Sometimes there is, and sometimes there isn't. It depends on the domain of discourse. In ontological theories of truth (such as Classical logic) there is no ontological referent for "white" so correspondence (and therefore - truth about "whiteness") is not possible.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amThere is.But did you know that there is no such color as "white" !
But, of course you probably won't believe me when I say that so... please locate the correspondent for "white" on the visible spectrum and identify it by its wavelength. Thanks!
I thought you said it's about the correspondence between concepts and reality?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am Given your tendency to arbitrarily define words such as "red" and "blue", I am not going to be answering this question until you define them first.
I thought you said that the symbols are arbitrary?
Let me paraphrase the question so you don't trip up over the red/blue terminology.
Is the negation of this color materially equivalent to this color?
If P is this color which color is not-P?
You keep trying to "explain" things you don't even understand to people who know much more than you. No wonder terms like "mansplaining" have gained popular use!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 amLet me try to explain.It has everything to do with that; and of course it follows!
If you believe P then anyone disagreeing with you necessarily believes not-P. What else could they believe in order to disagree?!?
So obviously if they prove P wrong then their proposition (not-P) must be right! Excluded middle necessitates it!
Lets suppose.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am Suppose you believe P. Suppose that P is "Joe Biden has two heads". Suppose that a friend of yours has proven you wrong i.e. that he's demonstrated that P is false.
Yes that's precisely what my friend believes!!!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am According to the law of excluded middle, it follows that your friend is obliged to believe not-P. And that's true.
2 is not a boolean, it's a number! The negation of a number implies ALL other numbers, except that number.
The negation of 2 implies all numbers except 2!
So it's true that Joe Biden has 1 head; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 4 heads... ad infinitum.
My friend believes that Joe Biden has ANY number of heads except 2. He is right.
You believe that Joe Biden has 2 heads. You are wrong.
So you don't even understand how your own "law" works?!? Why am I even surprised? You probably have no clue what a proof is either.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 2:01 am However, the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that what your friend believes on that particular issue is true.
For example, if your friend believes Q and Q is "Joe Biden has three heads", the law of excluded middle does not say or otherwise imply that Q is true.
It merely says that not-P is true. Your friend has merely proven that not-P is true and not-P in this case is "Joe Biden does not have two heads". He has NOT proven that his own claim, which is "Joe Biden has three heads", is true. That's all I said. Thankyouverymuch.
Assuming that Joe Biden has any number of heads whatsoever; "Joe Biden has two heads" is a ultimately a proposition about that number.
The sentence can be trivially rewritten (without altering its meaning) as "I propose that 2 is the number of heads Joe Biden has."
Another meaning-preserving rewrite: "I propose that 2 represents the number of Joe Biden's heads".
We can reduce the above to "I propose that the number in question is 2" e.g the proposition P is equivalent to the number 2.
(1) P ⇔ 2
(2) Excluded middle: P ∨ not(P) ⇔ ⊤
Substitute (1) into (2): 2 ∨ not(2) ⇔ ⊤
Since we know that 2 is false then not(2) must be true: ( (P ⇔ 2) ⇔ ⊥ ) ⇒ (not(2) ⇔ ⊤)
It's true that Joe Biden does not have 2 heads!
3 is not(2). Therefore 3 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads!
7 is not(2), Therefore 7 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 7 heads!
...
6525174512736123 is not(2), Therefore 6525174512736123 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 6525174512736123 heads!
...
The above can be generalized as: "Any number that is not 2 is the true number of heads" e.g ∀x, (x ∈ N) ∧ (x <> 2) ⇒ x ⇔ ⊤
How many heads does Joe Biden have? Well, 2 is false but any other number is true!
Thanks excluded middle, but that is NOT fucking useful towards identifying the actual number of heads.
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
You're contradicting yourself.Skepdick wrote:No!!!
I am saying that the rule applies to every proposition, except the propositions it fails to apply to!
If it applies to every proposition, there are no propositions it fails to apply to.
You really have a serious -- a really, really serious -- problem with language.
Given how feminized your mind is, you are the last person on Earth to lecture anyone on how to be a scientist.Reality decides, not you. Right ?!? Be a fucking scientist and make your logic empirical/self-evolving! If your ego allows it.
Show us the portion of reality it refers to.Of course it is! I am the one who expressed it - and I expressed a proposition.
Okay. It refers to the truth value of the belief attached to the sentence "This sentence is false". But what portion of reality does that attached belief refer to?The part of reality the proposition refers to is the truth-value of the belief that "This sentence is false".
No circular answers are allowed.
It does not.It satisfies all of your criteria
You have yet to learn what the word "definition" means.Next you are going to tell me that the sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." is not a definition of "blue".
YOU are an idiot. I wasn't talking about the expression "Dog". And even THAT expression is not a proposition on its own. You have to combine it with other things in order to turn it into a proposition. "That thing right there is a dog" would be a proposition. Saying "Dog" while pointing with your finger at some physical object would be a proposition. But the word "Dog" on its own is NOT a proposition (and thus it has no truth value.) But I wasn't even talking about the expression "Dog". I was talking about dogs qua animals. I wasn't talking about symbols. I was talking about living beings. Again, YOU DON'T LISTEN. You just MINDLESSLY CRITICIZE while pretending you're not criticizing at all.Idiot. The expression "Dog" when coupled with a referent is always a proposition!
You have to stop talking about yourself and seriously consider the possibility that you are extremely blind to your own deficiencies.That's not true. I am only "refusing to deal with it" as a universal.
I am happy to use any form of classification in the context of a particular pragmatic goal.
Some classification-schemes are fit for purpose. Some aren't. What is it that you are trying to classify and why?
You are confusing binary classification (a method, something that has NO truth value) with the law of excluded middle (a proposition, something that DOES have truth value.) Two different things. The latter is universal in the sense that it says something that is TRUE about ALL propositions. The former is not universal in the sense that it's not the most useful method in every situation. Again, you have a serious issue with language. You are utterly incapable of understanding what other people are saying. And again, instead of you responding in a defensive, narcissistic "I am so great" manner, you would do well to listen and ask questions.Precisely. Even you agree that it's not universal!
They are not prejudices.So why do you keep bringing the categories/prejudices of "true" and "false" to the classification table?!?
All propositions have truth value. By definition. And there are no such things as "boolean" and "non-boolean" propositions. There are really only boolean and non-boolean methods of classifying the truth value of propositions. Classification is entirely about 1) taking a set of things, 2) inventing a number of classes, and 3) placing each thing in one and only one of the classes by following certain classification rules. Classes are human inventions and so are classification rules. You can have ANY number of classes and you can classify things ANY way you want. The only guide is utility. Truth value, on the other hand, is a relation between the referred portion of reality and the idea about what's inside that portion of reality. It's the extent to which the idea about what's inside the referred portion of reality is similar to what's actually inside that portion of reality. How many different truth valeus there are depends on the size of the referred portion of reality. The greater the referred portion of reality, the greater the number of possible truth values. "True" and "false" are commonly used classes for classifying truth values. "True" is used for truth values where what's inside the referred portion of reality completely matches, is completely similar to, what's said to be inside it. "False" is a class used for all other truth values.Only Boolean propositions that have truth-values. Not all propositions are Boolean. Non-boolean propositions can have other values.
So the referred portion of reality is a linguistic entity, a sentence, a sequence of letters, that is "This sentence is false"? Is that what you're saying? If so, the following applies:I took a screenshot and highlighted the refered portion of reality for you. Because the idea of "the sentence itself' is too higher grade for you to handle.
Feel free to respond to the above.Magnus Anderson wrote:You can say that "This sentence is false" refers to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters. That's perfectly fine. In that case, you have to note that you're saying that the sentence "This sentence is false" has a property called "truth value" and that the value of that property is "false". But does is it really have that property? How do we establish that? What does it mean for a sentence to have truth value? A sentence is said to have truth value if and only if a proposition is attached to it. But how do we know whether or not a proposition is attached to a sentence? A proposition is attached to a sentence if and only if what's attached to that sentence has the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality ("subject") and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality ("predicate".) So if what's attached to the sentence "This sentence is false" is indeed a proposition, what portion of reality is it referring to? You can't say "itslef" because that would be running in circles. Because you can't identify the portion of reality the sentence is referring to, you are logically obligated to accept that the sentence is not a proposition and that because of that the law of excluded middle does not apply to it.
You don't know what the word "definition" means? Or maybe you're not sure how I'm using it? Or perhaps you're just playing dumb? Or maybe you're just testing my knowledge because you're insecure and you want to prove to yourself you are better than me? Either way, I'm using it the way most people use it. A definition is no more than a verbal or non-verbal description of what some term means. So what does it mean for a ball to be white?Skepdick wrote:So you are not going to provide a definition for "definition"?
I am. The law of excluded middle only applies to propositions. If it's not a proposition, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.You aren't supposed to tell whether it's a proposition!
You mean, I am supposed to bow down to your declarations? I am not allowed to think for myself? Quite interesting.You are supposed to hear, listen and understand THAT it's a proposition. I am the one doing the telling.
I have a feeling you presume too much.I have a feeling you should look in the mirror. You can't even define "define" because the entire paradigm of self-definition is completely foreign to you!
Maybe you should learn about how two-way communication works. I can see you're more into one-way communication where you talk and everyone else listens.Mean while, I've tried to explain to you how self-reference/recursion works... It doesn't seem like computer science; or programming language theory is your thing.
Quoting Wikipedia isn't demonstrating.I've been demonstrating it all along. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?
Here is a relevant part for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory
There's a white piece of paper in front of me. End of story. You can be a pathetic snob as much as you like trying to impress others with your knowledge but at the end of the day you're just a moron who has ingested all sorts of crap that he never really understood properly.But, of course you probably won't believe me when I say that so... please locate the correspondent for "white" on the visible spectrum and identify it by its wavelength. Thanks!
You are the one who said "The ball is white". Explain to us what you're saying. Explain to us what it means for a ball to be white. Either you can do that or you can't. If you can't, it's game over. Your counter-example is at being pointless and at worst a meaningless sentence (and hence, not a proposition.)
No and it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.Let me paraphrase the question so you don't trip up over the red/blue terminology.
Is the negation of this color materially equivalent to this color?
If P is this color which color is not-P?
So you must be a feminist.You keep trying to "explain" things you don't even understand to people who know much more than you. No wonder terms like "mansplaining" have gained popular use!
Nah, that's your misunderstanding of the law of excluded middle.2 is not a boolean, it's a number! The negation of a number implies ALL other numbers, except that number.
The negation of 2 implies all numbers except 2!
So it's true that Joe Biden has 1 head; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads; AND it's true that Joe Biden has 4 heads... ad infinitum.
The opposite of "Joe Biden has 2 heads" is "Joe Biden does not have 2 heads".
The opposite is not "Joe Biden has 1 head and Joe Biden has 3 heads and Joe Biden has 4 heads and so on ad infinitum".
Nah, you're the one misunderstanding it. You misunderstand everything.So you don't even understand how your own "law" works?!? Why am I even surprised? You probably have no clue what a proof is either.
That's what follows, yes.It's true that Joe Biden does not have 2 heads!
But none of the above actually follows. You made an elementary mistake. You're not free to substitute "Not 2" with "3". The two symbols do not have one and the same meaning. Thus, no substitution can take place. It's like someone saying "Joe Biden is a human" and you concluding "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" merely because Donald Trump is also s human. A slightly better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is not an animal" and then you concluding that "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" because Trump is not an animal either. This has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. It has to do with you deducing incorrectly.3 is not(2). Therefore 3 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 3 heads!
7 is not(2), Therefore 7 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 7 heads!
...
6525174512736123 is not(2), Therefore 6525174512736123 is true. It's true that Joe Biden has 6525174512736123 heads!
...
The above can be generalized as: "Any number that is not 2 is the true number of heads" e.g ∀x, (x ∈ N) ∧ (x <> 2) ⇒ x ⇔ ⊤
How many heads does Joe Biden have? Well, 2 is false but any other number is true!
Thanks excluded middle, but that is NOT fucking useful towards identifying the actual number of heads.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
"It applies to every proposition, there are no propositions it fails to apply to." is an a priori statement.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm You're contradicting yourself.
If it applies to every proposition, there are no propositions it fails to apply to.
"It applies to every proposition, EXCEPT the propositions it fails to apply to." is an a posteriori statement.
It's not a contradiction - it's a paradox. You need a few extra brain cells to resolve it without your head exploding.
Me?!? You seem the one confused about the sentence "It applies to every proposition, EXCEPT the propositions it fails to apply to."Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm You really have a serious -- a really, really serious -- problem with language.
Are you actually suggesting that science is only for male minds? That sounds pretty fucking sexist.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmGiven how feminized your mind is, you are the last person on Earth to lecture anyone on how to be a scientist.Reality decides, not you. Right ?!? Be a fucking scientist and make your logic empirical/self-evolving! If your ego allows it.
Surely you can't believe that gender has a causal relation with scientific prowess?
How many fucking times do you want me to show you the sentence "This sentce is false." ?!?! I even took a screenshot for you, circled it and everything!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmShow us the portion of reality it refers to.Of course it is! I am the one who expressed it - and I expressed a proposition.
Do you have any mental disabilities that I should know about?
OK, so I'll give you a recursive answer, not a circular one. It refers to itself!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmOkay. It refers to the truth value of the belief attached to the sentence "This sentence is false". But what portion of reality does that attached belief refer to?The part of reality the proposition refers to is the truth-value of the belief that "This sentence is false".
No circular answers are allowed.
Why is self-reference so difficult for you?
Of course it does. Which criterion is unsatisfied?
You have to learn what the word "you" means. Because I don't need to learn what "definition" means - I will just demonstrate how definition works.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmYou have yet to learn what the word "definition" means.Next you are going to tell me that the sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." is not a definition of "blue".
The sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." assigns this color to the term "blue".
And now the term "blue" means this color!
That IS how definitions work.
Which is why I combined it with a referent!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmYOU are an idiot. I wasn't talking about the expression "Dog". And even THAT expression is not a proposition on its own. You have to combine it with other things in order to turn it into a proposition.Idiot. The expression "Dog" when coupled with a referent is always a proposition!
DOG:
That is precisely what I am doing!!!!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Saying "Dog" while pointing with your finger at some physical object would be a proposition.
DOG --------->
I am NOT talking about myself. I am talking about YOU!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmYou have to stop talking about yourself and seriously consider the possibility that you are extremely blind to your own deficiencies.That's not true. I am only "refusing to deal with it" as a universal.
I am happy to use any form of classification in the context of a particular pragmatic goal.
Some classification-schemes are fit for purpose. Some aren't. What is it that you are trying to classify and why?
WHY do you want to classify anything? At this moment, in this conversation what is the purpose of your classifications?
No, I am not. Excluded middle is a form of binary classification. It sorts things into two categories: true and false.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmYou are confusing binary classification (a method, something that has NO truth value) with the law of excluded middle (a proposition, something that DOES have truth value.) Two different things.Precisely. Even you agree that it's not universal!
Other binary classifications might sort things into red and blue. Square and circular. Male and female. Etc etc.
What the categories contain is immaterial. What matters is that there are TWO of them - hence binary classification.
No it doesn't. It says absolutely nothing about non-Boolean propositions.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm The latter is universal in the sense that it says something that is TRUE about ALL propositions.
Idiot. I understand everything you are saying. And I disagree! I used to think exactly like you.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm The former is not universal in the sense that it's not the most useful method in every situation. Again, you have a serious issue with language. You are utterly incapable of understanding what other people are saying. And again, instead of you responding in a defensive, narcissistic "I am so great" manner, you would do well to listen and ask questions.
I don't need to ask you any questions - I used to subscribe to Classical logic. That is WHY I rejected it.
It was a deliberate choice.
They are. All categories are prejudices of the mind.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmThey are not prejudices.So why do you keep bringing the categories/prejudices of "true" and "false" to the classification table?!?
Nature doesn't come in categories.
What is it that you are struggling to comprehend here? Only all Boolean propositions have truth-value. Non-boolean propositions have other values.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmAll propositions have truth value. By definition.Only Boolean propositions that have truth-values. Not all propositions are Boolean. Non-boolean propositions can have other values.
A proposition is a type: https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/propositions+as+types
Boolean-types are not the only types.
Not in the logic I am using. Type theory.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm And there are no such things as "boolean" and "non-boolean" propositions. There are really only boolean and non-boolean methods of classifying the truth value of propositions.
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/propositions+as+types
Who says we are dealing with sets?!?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Classification is entirely about 1) taking a set of things
In type theory we deal with TYPES. https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/type
All sets are types, but not all types are sets.
Why do you say "on the other hand"!?!? Why is truth-value an exception to the utility rule? Why do you classify things as "true" and "false" ?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm You can have ANY number of classes and you can classify things ANY way you want. The only guide is utility. Truth value, on the other hand,
The sentence represents a belief. Beliefs have truth value (your words). So why wouldn't a linguistic representation of a belief have truth-value?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm So the referred portion of reality is a linguistic entity, a sentence, a sequence of letters, that is "This sentence is false"? Is that what you're saying? If so, the following applies:
You can say that "This sentence is false" refers to the symbol itself, the sequence of letters. That's perfectly fine. In that case, you have to note that you're saying that the sentence "This sentence is false" has a property called "truth value" and that the value of that property is "false". But does is it really have that property?
Of course I can say it!?!? If person can make assertions about themselves - why can't a sentence make assertions about itself ?!?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm A proposition is attached to a sentence if and only if what's attached to that sentence has the following two components: a reference to a portion of reality ("subject") and an idea as to what's inside that portion of reality ("predicate".) So if what's attached to the sentence "This sentence is false" is indeed a proposition, what portion of reality is it referring to? You can't say "itslef" because that would be running in circles.
I can identify it! The sentence is refering to itself!!!!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Because you can't identify the portion of reality the sentence is referring to, you are logically obligated to accept that the sentence is not a proposition and that because of that the law of excluded middle does not apply to it.
What portion of reality am I refering to when I assert things about myself? MYSELF!
Oh no! A circular definition! What does the term "definition" mean? Define the meaning of "definition"!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmYou don't know what the word "definition" means? Or maybe you're not sure how I'm using it? Or perhaps you're just playing dumb? Or maybe you're just testing my knowledge because you're insecure and you want to prove to yourself you are better than me? Either way, I'm using it the way most people use it. A definition is no more than a verbal or non-verbal description of what some term means.Skepdick wrote:So you are not going to provide a definition for "definition"?
Non-sequitur. It is a proposition. I should bloody well know what it is - I created the sentence!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmI am. The law of excluded middle only applies to propositions. If it's not a proposition, it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.You aren't supposed to tell whether it's a proposition!
You can think all you want. The information required to make the detmination is NOT in your head - it's in my head.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm You mean, I am supposed to bow down to your declarations? I am not allowed to think for myself? Quite interesting.
I created the sentence - not you. It is a proposition by design. If your thinking arrives at any other conclusion then your thinking is necessarily wrong.
It happens when you are reasoning with incomplete information.
I have a feeling I presume just the right amount.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmI have a feeling you presume too much.I have a feeling you should look in the mirror. You can't even define "define" because the entire paradigm of self-definition is completely foreign to you!
I know how it works. There's even a Mathematical theory of communication. Refer to Shannon. 1948.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Maybe you should learn about how two-way communication works.
No, I am not. I am waiting for you to complete synchronization.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm I can see you're more into one-way communication where you talk and everyone else listens.
I know. Demonstrating is demonstrating. But all the demonstrations appear to go above your head.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmQuoting Wikipedia isn't demonstrating.I've been demonstrating it all along. Perhaps you weren't paying attention?
Here is a relevant part for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_theory
So I am giving you material that's closer to your level of comprehension.
Shouldn't you justify that belief? I am sure there's a piece of paper in front of you, but what makes you believe it's white if there is no such color in the spectrum.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm There's a white piece of paper in front of me. End of story.
You don't even understand what it means to understand.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm You can be a pathetic snob as much as you like trying to impress others with your knowledge but at the end of the day you're just a moron who has ingested all sorts of crap that he never really understood properly.
Sure... Soon as you explain to me what an "explanation" is.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm You are the one who said "The ball is white". Explain to us what you're saying. Explain to us what it means for a ball to be white.
Either you can explain what an "explanation" is, or it's game over.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Either you can do that or you can't. If you can't, it's game over.
To use your own criterion for meaning: Take the set of all colors and take only the white one.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Your counter-example is at being pointless and at worst a meaningless sentence (and hence, not a proposition.)
That's how you deduce "white".
It has everything to do with negation. What does it mean to negate a proposition about a color; or a number?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm No and it has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle.
I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion. I am merely observing that you are "explaining" things you don't understand to people who do.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pmSo you must be a feminist.You keep trying to "explain" things you don't even understand to people who know much more than you. No wonder terms like "mansplaining" have gained popular use!
Other people use the word "mansplaining" to describe that behaviour. I don't.
That can't be the "opposite". In the one statement you are expressing a concrete number, in the other statement you are expressing an counter-factual.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Nah, that's your misunderstanding of the law of excluded middle.
The opposite of "Joe Biden has 2 heads" is "Joe Biden does not have 2 heads".
That's a type error in my logic. The negation of a number is not a counter-factual.
Of course it is! The opposite of 2 is ALL numers except 2.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm The opposite is not "Joe Biden has 1 head and Joe Biden has 3 heads and Joe Biden has 4 heads and so on ad infinitum".
Of course I am! EVERY number is either 2 or not 2! P or not P.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm But none of the above actually follows. You made an elementary mistake. You're not free to substitute "Not 2" with "3".
Welcome to excluded middle.
They do thanks to excluded middle. It's true that every number is either 2 or not 2!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm The two symbols do not have one and the same meaning.
1 is not 2
2 is 2
3 is not 2
4 is not 2
...
Wat? That's not what I am doing.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm Thus, no substitution can take place. It's like someone saying "Joe Biden is a human" and you concluding "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" merely because Donald Trump is also s human.
No, a better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is either a tree; or not a tree".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm A slightly better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is not an animal"
Obviously he is not a tree.
And so he could be a cat! Because a cat is not a tree!
Or he could be a horse. because a horse is not a tree!
Idiot. You seem completely unable to distinguish between terms and types.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm and then you concluding that "Joe Biden is Donald Trump" because Trump is not an animal either.
"Joe Biden" is a term. The type of the term is NOT animal.
Saying Joe Biden is not an animal can't possibly imply that Joe Biden is Donald Trump
Because Donald Trump is an animal, but Joe Biden is NOT an animal! The terms have different types - you are comparing apples to oranges!
My deduction is just fine. It's yours that's broken.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:33 pm This has nothing to do with the law of excluded middle. It has to do with you deducing incorrectly.
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
Proper science is a masculine endeavour. But jobs are created by those at the top. And if they have a need for pseudo-science, e.g. for political reasons, they will create such jobs, hire those who are best suited for them (i.e. women, considering that women are far more willing to follow instructions), tell them they are scientists and everyone else they are sexists if they dare to say that science is a masculine endeavour.Skepdick wrote:Are you actually suggesting that science is only for male minds?
In standard English, that sentence wouldn't count as definition because definitions are propositions where the referred portion of reality is the meaning of some word. The referred portion of reality in the above sentence is the color of that sentence. A definition would be something like "The word 'red' is defined as the color of this sentence". A subtle but important difference.The sentence "The color of this sentence is blue." assigns this color to the term "blue"
Noone gives a shit.Which is why I combined it with a referent!
Noone gives a shit.That is precisely what I am doing!!!!
It isn't. It's a proposition. Binary classification is a method. Methods and propositions are two different things.Excluded middle is a form of binary classification.
And noone gives a shit. We're talking about the law of excludded middle here. We're not talking about whatever the fuck you want to talk about.Not in the logic I am using.
Who gives a shit? Can you be more irrelevant?In type theory we deal with TYPES
Because no belief is actually attached to the sentence.The sentence represents a belief. Beliefs have truth value (your words). So why wouldn't a linguistic representation of a belief have truth-value?
You can't. That's like someone asking "Who is John?" and someone else answering "It's John!"Of course I can say it!?!?
You presume too much. Noone said that a sentence cannot make assertions about itself. I even made it clear a number of times in this thread. Obviously, you don't read. And if you do read, you don't listen.If person can make assertions about themselves - why can't a sentence make assertions about itself ?!?
Here, let me remind you:
Skepdick wrote:It's so strange that you can assign a truth-value to a sentence which is grammatically and semantically identical to "This sentence is false".
Magnus Anderson wrote:It appears strange to you because you don't realize that "The color of this sentence is black" is a sentence with a belief attached to it whereas "This sentence is false" is a sentence with no belief attached to it.
Skepdick wrote:Self-reference must be really confusing for you.
Magnus Anderson wrote:It is not. "This sentence is black" is an example of a self-referential sentence that I am perfectly fine with.
Skepdick wrote:So why the double standard? Why are you not fine with "This sentence is false."
Why are you fine with the color-property, but not the truth-property of the sentence?
Magnus Anderson wrote:There is no double standard. And I already explained why I am not fine with "This sentence is false". It has no belief attached to it, and hence, no truth value.
Magnus Anderson wrote:"This sentence is black" has color property. "This sentence has false" has no truth value (since it has no belief attached to it.)
Your last argument sort of agreed with mine. You admitted that it has no truth value (since the statement is neither true nor false) so you tried arguing that it has truth property and that it's the presencen of a truth property that makes something a proposition. But that's your own invention, you see. As I've told you before, you can define words any way you like . . . but when dealing with other people's claims, you have to understand how THEY define their terms. And the definition of the word "proposition" as used in the law of excluded middle is not the same as yours.Skepdick wrote:The issue is not whether it has a truth-vlaue. The issue is whether it has a truth-property.
Yes, but if I asked you to tell me how to locate you, you'd be able to do so and I'd be able to find you. In the case of the portion of reality that the belief attached to "This sentence is false" refers, you are not capable of doing that. You can merely say "It refers itself!" That's circular. That would be like me asking "Where are you?" and you answering with "I am where I am". It's dumb.What portion of reality am I refering to when I assert things about myself? MYSELF!
Didn't I? And what's your obsession with the word "definition"?Oh no! A circular definition! What does the term "definition" mean? Define the meaning of "definition"!
That's how self-conceited people think . . . they think they know all about themselves. Whatever they say about themselves must be true. There is no way in hell someone can have a skewed perception of themselves. But most importantly, you didn't really create the sentence . . . you just used it. It's actually a well known sentence. Totally not your creation.I should bloody well know what it is - I created the sentence!
If it is, show us the portion of reality the attached belief refers to. Don't just make empty assetions. "I said it therefore it's true!" Can you be more egocentric than that?It is a proposition by design.
You're seriously blind to how much of a wreck you are.I know how it works.
I didn't ask for that material. You can stick it up your arse.So I am giving you material that's closer to your level of comprehension.
The fact that white is not a spectral color is totally irrelevant.Shouldn't you justify that belief? I am sure there's a piece of paper in front of you, but what makes you believe it's white if there is no such color in the spectrum.
So you're going to avoid providing one by pretending you don't know what the word "explanation" means?Sure... Soon as you explain to me what an "explanation" is.
Who gives a shit about YOUR logic?That's a type error in my logic.
The opposite of "2" is "Not 2". "Not 2" isn't "Every number except 2". It's "A number other than 2". That number can be 1, it can be 3, it can be 4 and so on; but it can never be all of those numbers at the same time.The opposite of 2 is ALL numers except 2.
That's EXACTLY what you're doing merely blind to it.Wat? That's not what I am doing.
An awful analogy.No, a better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is either a tree; or not a tree".
Obviously he is not a tree.
And so he could be a cat! Because a cat is not a tree!
Or he could be a horse. because a horse is not a tree!
Your reasoning started with "The number of heads Joe Biden has is not 2" and went something like this:
1) Because "1" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 1.
2) Because "3" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 3.
3) Because "4" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 4.
etc.
That's analogous to someone starting with "Trump is not a president" and then concluding the following:
1) Because George Bush is not a president, Trump is Bush
2) Because Obama is not a president, Trump is Obama
3) Because Nancy Pelosi is not a president, Trump is Nancy
4) Because AOC is not a president, Trump is AOC
5) Because Skepdick is not a president, Trump is Skepdick
6) Because horses aren't presidents, Trump is every single one of those horses
etc
It's called bad logic. You're making an elementary, kindergarten, mistake. If you are not Trump that does not mean you are every single person who's also not Trump. It's embarrassing, but fortunately for you, you have developed a set of very strong defensive mechanisms to protect yourself from embarrassment.
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
What makes a science "propper"? And what is it that you think makes it a "masculine endeavour" ?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm Proper science is a masculine endeavour. But jobs are created by those at the top. And if they have a need for pseudo-science, e.g. for political reasons, they will create such jobs, hire those who are best suited for them (i.e. women, considering that women are far more willing to follow instructions), tell them they are scientists and everyone else they are sexists if they dare to say that science is a masculine endeavour.
Surely "propper science" is "propper science" irrespective of who does it! I mean look at us - you are masculine, I am masculine but you are totally shit at "proper science". Peraps you would actually improve at "proper science" if you acquired some feminine traits? Who knows?
Standard English? Is there a standards body for the English lannguage or something? Where is it? Who appointed them?
I never thought there could be such a thing as an authority on language.
You are using different words to say the same thing I did. The activities produce the exact same result/outcome!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm that sentence wouldn't count as definition because definitions are propositions where the referred portion of reality is the meaning of some word. The referred portion of reality in the above sentence is the color of that sentence. A definition would be something like "The word 'red' is defined as the color of this sentence". A subtle but important difference.
When everything is said and done the meaning of "blue" becomes this color.
Speak for yourself. I am not "noone".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmNoone gives a shit.Which is why I combined it with a referent!
Speak for yourself. I am not "noone".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmNoone gives a shit.That is precisely what I am doing!!!!
What is the difference? You are classifying the truth-value of propositions as either true; or false.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmIt isn't. It's a proposition. Binary classification is a method. Methods and propositions are two different things.Excluded middle is a form of binary classification.
Speak for yourself. I am not "noone".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmAnd noone gives a shit.Not in the logic I am using.
That's what I am talking about also! The "law" of excluded middle can be introduced into any logic. Universally, OR contextually.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm We're talking about the law of excludded middle here. We're not talking about whatever the fuck you want to talk about.
Both of us give a shit! YOU want to talk about propositions in context of the "law" of excluded middle!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmWho gives a shit? Can you be more irrelevant?In type theory we deal with TYPES
That's precisely what I am talking about! I am USING Type Theory to talk about propositions in context of the "law" of excluded middle!. BECAUSE Propositions ARE Types!!!
So no. I can't be more relevant.
Using type theory to talk about types (a.k.a propositions) is as relevant as I know how to be.
Do you know how to be more relevant?
Of course there is a belief "actually attached"!!! That is literally what it means for a sentence to represent a belief!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmBecause no belief is actually attached to the sentence.The sentence represents a belief. Beliefs have truth value (your words). So why wouldn't a linguistic representation of a belief have truth-value?
Yes! It's exactly like saying "Who am I?". I AM ME! ALL of me is me!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmYou can't. That's like someone asking "Who is John?" and someone else answering "It's John!"Of course I can say it!?!?
If you don't like the answer then maybe your question is poorly worded. Do you even know what you are asking with the question "Who is John?"
What sort of answer do you expect to such an open-ended question? A finger-pointing? A photo? A social graph? John's life story? A psychological profile of John? A deep insightinto John's life philosophy, motivations and values?
What is it that you want to know about John when you ask such a vague question about complex humans?
The sentence represents a belief. It has a belief attached to it. Despite your objections.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmYou presume too much. Noone said that a sentence cannot make assertions about itself. I even made it clear a number of times in this thread. Obviously, you don't read. And if you do read, you don't listen.If person can make assertions about themselves - why can't a sentence make assertions about itself ?!?
Here, let me remind you:
Skepdick wrote:It's so strange that you can assign a truth-value to a sentence which is grammatically and semantically identical to "This sentence is false".Magnus Anderson wrote:It appears strange to you because you don't realize that "The color of this sentence is black" is a sentence with a belief attached to it whereas "This sentence is false" is a sentence with no belief attached to it.Skepdick wrote:Self-reference must be really confusing for you.Magnus Anderson wrote:It is not. "This sentence is black" is an example of a self-referential sentence that I am perfectly fine with.Skepdick wrote:So why the double standard? Why are you not fine with "This sentence is false."
Why are you fine with the color-property, but not the truth-property of the sentence?Magnus Anderson wrote:There is no double standard. And I already explained why I am not fine with "This sentence is false". It has no belief attached to it, and hence, no truth value.Magnus Anderson wrote:"This sentence is black" has color property. "This sentence has false" has no truth value (since it has no belief attached to it.)
The sentence "This sentence is true."; and the sentence "This belief (represented as a sentence) is true; and the sentence "This belief is true" are semantically equivalent.
What the fuck? Can you even comprehend anything I am saying? What I admitted is that the truth-value is undecidable. That doesn't mean it has no truth-property. What it means is that it has a truth-property whose truth value is undecided!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmYour last argument sort of agreed with mine. You admitted that it has no truth value (since the statement is neither true nor false)Skepdick wrote:The issue is not whether it has a truth-vlaue. The issue is whether it has a truth-property.
It's neither true, nor false. YET. It may become true; or false in future!
It's not "my own invention" dickhead! That's literally why there's thousands and thousands of Internet articles by various people, Mathematicians, Computer Scientists and Philosophers are talking about it.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm But that's your own invention, you see. As I've told you before, you can define words any way you like . . . but when dealing with other people's claims, you have to understand how THEY define their terms. And the definition of the word "proposition" as used in the law of excluded middle is not the same as yours.
The crux of the matter is DECIDABILITY!
Either P is true; or not-P is true. Sure. So which one is true? DECIDE!
Is (P true AND not-P false); OR is (P false AND not-P true) ?
Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmYes, but if I asked you to tell me how to locate you, you'd be able to do so and I'd be able to find you. In the case of the portion of reality that the belief attached to "This sentence is false" refers, you are not capable of doing that. You can merely say "It refers itself!" That's circular.What portion of reality am I refering to when I assert things about myself? MYSELF!
You'll find all of those things in approximatelly the same space! Very close to the location of my thirst; and all the rest of me!
It may be circular but it's true! I am HERE.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm That would be like me asking "Where are you?" and you answering with "I am where I am". It's dumb.
What is it that you are actually asking about me when you ask "Where are you?". Galaxy? Planet? Country? City? Suburb? Exact GPS coordinates?
Where in life I am? Where in my headspace I am ? Where in my career I am? Maybe I was supposed to be somewhere and I am not there?
That question is polymorphic! What does it mean ?!?
My "obsession" is with recursion (which is NOT circularity). And language is recursive so...Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmDidn't I? And what's your obsession with the word "definition"?Oh no! A circular definition! What does the term "definition" mean? Define the meaning of "definition"!
I am not talking about myself. I am talking about the sentence I created.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmThat's how self-conceited people think . . . they think they know all about themselves.I should bloody well know what it is - I created the sentence!
Well, if you want to go down the uncharitable route...Maybe you are lying right now?
In general, of course they can! In this particular case - it's not true. Quit over-generalising and abstracting the concrete.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm There is no way in hell someone can have a skewed perception of themselves.
You are lying! You are literally objecting to THE WAY I am using the sentence appealing to "standard English" and objecting that it's "not a proposition" and "it has no truth-value".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm But most importantly, you didn't really create the sentence . . . you just used it. It's actually a well known sentence. Totally not your creation.
It's pretty damn obvious that this is the first time you've seen the sentence used as a proposition!
So it's obviously not "well known" TO YOU. Otherwise you'd understand it instantly.
Idiot. Show us the portion of reality where your question originates from! Show us the uncertainty attached to it! Don't just ask empty questions! Can you be more egocentric than that?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmIf it is, show us the portion of reality the attached belief refers to. Don't just make empty assetions. "I said it therefore it's true!" Can you be more egocentric than that?It is a proposition by design.
I can play the gaslighting game also.
Heh. And I bet you think a bit more masculinity would fix me, eh?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmYou're seriously blind to how much of a wreck you are.I know how it works.
Maybe you want to resolve this with trial by combat instead of dialogue?
You can just say "No thank you." if you prefer to remain ignorant. No need to be a dick about it.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmI didn't ask for that material. You can stick it up your arse.So I am giving you material that's closer to your level of comprehension.
It's not irrelevant at all! If truth is correspondence to reality, but there is no such color as "white" in reality then what does "white" actually correspond to when you talk about a "white" piece of paper?!?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm The fact that white is not a spectral color is totally irrelevant.
And most importantly: WHERE is that which "white" corresponds to? Is it "out there" (on the paper); or "in there" (in yourhead).
Maybe I do. Maybe I don't know. I want to make sure we are using it the same way.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmSo you're going to avoid providing one by pretending you don't know what the word "explanation" means?Sure... Soon as you explain to me what an "explanation" is.
Explain what an "explanation" is.
Anyone who talks about propositions. Or at least they ought to give a shit. It works better than classical logic.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmWho gives a shit about YOUR logic?That's a type error in my logic.
That's just a grammatical banality. What does "not 2" refer to?Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmThe opposite of "2" is "Not 2".The opposite of 2 is ALL numers except 2.
It could refer to ANYTHING that's not the number 2. I am not 2. You are not 2. Planet Earth is not 2.
How is that any different to what I said ?!?! EVERY number other than 2 is a number other than 2!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm "Not 2" isn't "Every number except 2". It's "A number other than 2".
Without actually specifying a number, "not 2" could be any one of 0,1,3,4,5,6,7...
Which is exactly what I said! How many heads does Joe Biden have? Any number but 2!
Well if it "can never be all of those numbers at the same time" then tell remove all of the numbers which are NOT the number of heads Joe Biden has!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm That number can be 1, it can be 3, it can be 4 and so on; but it can never be all of those numbers at the same time.
You only removed 2 as a possibility.
So the set of possibilities is very much ALL numbers except 2. At the exact same time.
You are mistaken about my "blindness".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmThat's EXACTLY what you're doing merely blind to it.Wat? That's not what I am doing.
Perfect analogy!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pmAn awful analogy.No, a better analogy would be someone saying "Joe Biden is either a tree; or not a tree".
Obviously he is not a tree.
And so he could be a cat! Because a cat is not a tree!
Or he could be a horse. because a horse is not a tree!
Given the set of possibilities Joe Biden could be anything <===> Given the set of possibilities Joe Biden could have any number of heads.
Joe Biden is not a tree <===> Joe Biden does not have 2 heads
Joe Biden could be anything, but a tree! <===> Joe Biden could have any number of heads, but 2.
Strawman. That's nothing like the reasoning I am demonstrating.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm Your reasoning started with "The number of heads Joe Biden has is not 2" and went something like this:
1) Because "1" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 1.
2) Because "3" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 3.
3) Because "4" is "not 2", the number of heads Joe Biden has is 4.
etc.
That's analogous to someone starting with "Trump is not a president" and then concluding the following:
1) Because George Bush is not a president, Trump is Bush
2) Because Obama is not a president, Trump is Obama
3) Because Nancy Pelosi is not a president, Trump is Nancy
4) Because AOC is not a president, Trump is AOC
5) Because Skepdick is not a president, Trump is Skepdick
6) Because horses aren't presidents, Trump is every single one of those horses
etc
You are continuously confusing terms and types.
Call it whatever you want, just stop doing it.
You fucking idiot. The mistake is yours, not mine. You don't even know on whose behalf you are speaking!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm You're making an elementary, kindergarten, mistake. If you are not Trump that does not mean you are every single person who's also not Trump.
To ME it doesn't mean that "I could be every single person except Trump" - I know who I am; and who I am not.
To YOU I could be any single person, except Trump - You don't know who I am; and who I am not.
To YOU I could be Graham Priest, Jeff Behrends, Paul Elbourne, Luciano Floridi.
Who I am NOT doesn't tell you who I am! I told you that negating falsehoods doesn't produce truths but you don't listen very well.
You are projecting.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 9:11 pm It's embarrassing, but fortunately for you, you have developed a set of very strong defensive mechanisms to protect yourself from embarrassment.
-
- Posts: 330
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2015 3:26 am
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
That piece of paper in front of me is white. You'd say the same about it. You wouldn't argue it's black. That's proof that white color exists in reality.Skepdick wrote:If truth is correspondence to reality, but there is no such color as "white" in reality then what does "white" actually correspond to when you talk about a "white" piece of paper?!?
The visible spectrum is irrelevant because, contrary to the popular belief, the visible spectrum does not determine what colors exist in reality and what colors don't.
It's out there. The color of a thing is determined by the kind of visual experience the trichromat has when looking at that thing under certain conditions.And most importantly: WHERE is that which "white" corresponds to? Is it "out there" (on the paper); or "in there" (in yourhead).
Re: (0=0)=(1=1)
So waht? There is no relationship (other than convention) between what we say about things; and what things are.Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:42 amThat piece of paper in front of me is white. You'd say the same about it.Skepdick wrote:If truth is correspondence to reality, but there is no such color as "white" in reality then what does "white" actually correspond to when you talk about a "white" piece of paper?!?
As I keep demonstrating this is blue; or this is blue..
I wouldn't because I don't argue, but I would still disagree.
Black is not a color either. You can't pinpoint it on the visual spectrum.
I don't think so. It doesn't address the actual issue: the location of white (or black - now that you mention it)
Naively (and not knowing that the color spectrum has no colors such as white) one would be tempted to say that's a sufficient demonstration.
But you do know that the color spectrum has no white color. So where is white located?
Really?!? The visual spectrum literally contains all colors in reality. Saying that it doesn't determine what colors exist in reality literally amounts to saying "reality doesn't determine what colors exist in reality".Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:42 am The visible spectrum is irrelevant because, contrary to the popular belief, the visible spectrum does not determine what colors exist in reality and what colors don't.
So if reality doesn't - what does?
Then why can't you pinpoint it on the color spectrum?
This literally contradicts everything you just said! If white is "out there" then the observer's trichromacy; or tetrachromacy (or any other quirks of their visual system) don't matter!Magnus Anderson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 19, 2022 6:42 am The color of a thing is determined by the kind of visual experience the trichromat has when looking at that thing under certain conditions.
White is white is white irrespective of the observer. So point out "white" on the color spectrum!