## Poll on the validity of two arguments

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

## Are these two arguments valid?

1st argument - Valid
4
25%
1st argument - Not valid
3
19%
1st argument - I don't know
1
6%
1st argument - The argument doesn't make sense
1
6%
2nd argument - Valid
4
25%
2nd argument - Not valid
3
19%
2nd argument - I don't know
0
2nd argument - The argument doesn't make sense
0

Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmThis is the most ironical comment I've read in a while.
You're welcome.
Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmYou've described in detail how we can interpret "state" in at least a dozen different ways,

No.
Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmand that you really fail to grasp that state is just an abstraction,

What isn't?
Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pmat least when you are using it in a formal logic argument. That's my point.
Anyway, you're posts are just a derail.
You obviously like to address issues you think you have something to say while failing to address the OP's question, which is as to the validity of the arguments. There's nothing in what you've said so far that addresses that.
Have an ice day.
EB
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2634
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Atla wrote: Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:40 pm You've described in detail how we can interpret "state" in at least a dozen different ways
He has used the word state in the usual and accepted way. If you want to approach the problem that way, you could focus instead on what all those states has in common. They all describe cumulative states - the economy is a description of many people's individual financial states for instance, the state of relations between Canada and Saudi Arabia is bad, but there are countless particular relations between the countries that differ from the cumulative state, such as pen pals, and cousins who live abroad.

So it's not really necessary, but for instance you could complain that ... for all you know the current state of your alarm clock is 5pm, and your state of wakefulness depends on the alarm clock, but that does not mean that for all you know your current state of wakefulness depends on the 5pm of your clock if the alarm itself goes off at 7 am. If you work something up nicely enough along the lines of particular states (you'll need to put more care into it that I am minded to) it might meet the requirements the OP has set for objections to his theory.

Personally I don't really care, it's the trap that makes this thread worth a glance. I'm really just loitering to see if and how this turns into an argument about God.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

A concrete example may help to think about validity.
So, here is a concrete an example:
P1 - For all we know, the real world may be the state of some part of God;
P2 - What people do is determined by the state of some part of God;
C - Therefore, for all we know, what people do may be determined by the real world.
God is merciful.
You only have to ask politely.
EB
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2634
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

OOoooh, exciting, I was wondering what the point of the second arg was, bizarrely it never occurred to me you actually intended to use it. I'm not sure that's the one that 'philosopher' endorsed, but let's see if he can get out of it.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

The notion of state is an abstract notion, but not more abstract than any other notion. For example, the notion of cow is abstract. It is abstract merely by not referring to any single actual cow. Concrete notions are therefore necessarily in the minority. For example, the notion of "this post" if used here is concrete since it will be understood as referring to this one single actual post you're now reading. So words are not concrete or abstract in themselves, it will depend on how you use them, and most of the time they are used abstractedly, and certainly in all syllogistic arguments.
So "state" is abstract here? Yes. Big deal.
Usually, the notion of being abstract is misused to make the trivial distinction between so-called concrete terms referring to things you can perceive directly with your senses, likes cows, and abstract terms that you can't, like the state of the economy, democracy, necessity, logical validity, things that you would need to infer from what you perceive. So, you can't perceive the state of the economy with your own eyes, but you can't see atoms, energy, mass or the interior of your own brain with your own eyes either. So, not a very useful distinction to make in the context of this thread.
EB
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

I am having a hard time parsing your argument.

Either B is a function of A or it is not. "For all we know" spells modal logic.

So C = g(B)
And B = ◊ P(A)

So C = ◊ P(A)

You have an unknown probability function. P(A) ∈ [0,1].

Unless you state the probability P one would appeal to the principle of maximum entropy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle ... um_entropy ) and would assume 0.5

Your argument reduces down to "There is a 50% chance that C is determined by A and 50% chance that it is not."
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pm The concept of 'state' has very clear and precise definition in computer science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_(computer_science)
Yes, but the argument doesn't specify "computer sciences".
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmGiven a variable which is a product of time A(t), then A is said to be stateful IF and only IF
A(t+1) = f(A(t))
With f() being called the transfer function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_function
That is very good but no definition of the general notion of state as used in the argument.
It's not a definition, it's a formal condition on the kind of states which are considered in the context of computer sciences. And then, my argument is more general than computer sciences will ever be.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmAnd so I am having a hard time parsing your argument.
"And so"?!
Sorry, no, that's a non-sequitur.
You can't reasonably assess the validity of an argument by restricting the vocabulary to computer sciences.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmEither B is a function of A or it is not.
Irrelevant.
Look at premise 1:
P1 - For all we know, A may be the state of some part of B;
If A is the state of some part of B, it means there is an unknown X which is a part of B and that A is the state of X. That's already very different from your "Either B is a function of A or it is not".
Whether B is a function of A is obviously irrelevant to the argument and therefore to its validity.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pm"For all we know" spells modal logic.
So C = g(B)
Sure, but that's not what premise 2 says and so you can't assess validity from there.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmAnd B = ◊ f(A)
That bit may be true but it's not part of the argument and therefore is irrelevant to the validity of the argument.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmSo C = (◊ f(A) )
It's not what the conclusion says so you can't assess validity from there.
Logik wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:30 pmYou are left with 50/50 probability.
Probability of what?!
The argument is about possibility, not probability.
And the OP's question is not about probabilities or even soundness but about the validity of the argument.
So, if you want to post here, please vote and then address the topic.
For the moment, all you say here is either irrelevant or a derail.
EB
Last edited by Speakpigeon on Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:08 pm The argument is about possibility, not probability.
Potato potatoh.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:08 pm Yes, but the argument doesn't specify "computer sciences".
You mean your argument falls outside of the systematic analysis and application of logic?

OK. Then I am out of the discussion...

Nobody can assess validity until you write it in Mathematics. There is an infinite number of ways to interpret your words.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Good riddance.

This is a forum, not the inside of a computer.
Many different sorts of people enjoy doing the systematic analysis and application of logic. Computer sciences is just a province of that.

I could produce a formal interpretation of both arguments, one I accept as an accurate interpretation, but that's not the topic because very few people would even understand the formalism. The topic is about the arguments as worded and phrased because it's in everyday English and it's how most people can best assess validity.

As of now, I have yet to see any mathematical proof that would be worth more than our logical intuition.
Mathematics only helps with complex arguments, and then only if you understand the formalism.
Mathematicians themselves, very nearly all of them, to produce the proofs of their conjectures, keep relying on their own subjectively intuitive sense of logic, not any formal logic. Formal proof by computer is still foreign to most of mathematical practice.

For people with a bit of common sense, no, there is only one way to interpret the argument to assess validity.
You own effort to interpret the argument shows you only looked at it perfunctorily and only through the blind of your speciality, if that's what it is.

So, yes, good riddance.
EB
Last edited by Speakpigeon on Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:14 pm Good riddance.
EB
I apologise for trying to educate you.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Don't apologise, you haven't started yet.
And me who thought we got rid of you for good!!!
EB
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 4:51 pm Don't apologise, you haven't started yet.
And me who thought we got rid of you for good!!!
EB
Indeed it is necessary.

I apologise for referencing the relevant content, when all you expected was to be spoon-fed an answer.

It is only polite to reach people at their level of understanding. How rude of me to assume intellect.
Speakpigeon
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:20 pm
Location: Paris, France, EU

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

However, I did ask a very simple question as to the validity of the argument, question you haven't bothered to answer.
But anything else is a derail. So, your link was also a derail.
Further, your skills are not established in my view, so I'm not going to spend any time checking possibly irrelevant links.
If you can't articulate a coherent point of view relevant to this thread, then please just abstain.
Even your formalisation of my argument is substandard and obviously off. It's patent you haven't taken the time to read the argument properly.
So, you have zero credit with me as yet. And you've even started to accumulate bad points.
I thought you were gone?! What keeps you?
EB
Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

### Re: Poll on the validity of two arguments

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:11 pm I haven't asked for a tutorial on your logical wisdom.
You asked if the argument is valid.

In order to assert validity one must first establish grammar and semantics.

Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:11 pm However, I did ask a very simple question as to the validity of the argument, question you haven't bothered to answer.
1. I voted.
2. How would you go about establishing the validity of an argument you cannot parse?
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:11 pm But anything else is a derail. So, your link was also a derail.
So my attempt to get you to clarify your semantics and grammar is a derail?

OK.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:11 pm Further, your skills are not established in my view, so I'm not going to spend any time checking possibly irrelevant links.
My skills have not been refuted either, so you are equally as likely not going to spend any time checking possibly relevant links.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:11 pm If you can't articulate a coherent point of view relevant to this thread, then please just abstain.
It is exceptionally coherent and relevant.
If you understand the theory.
Speakpigeon wrote: Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:11 pm Even your formalisation of my argument is substandard and obviously off. It's patent you haven't taken the time to read the argument properly.
So, you have zero credit with me as yet. And you've even started to accumulate bad points.
I thought you were gone?! What keeps you?
You do understand what the word 'parsing' means, right?

Reading your argument does not mean I can PARSE its meaning. If I can't parse its meaning, then I can't establish its validity.

As for your credit - I don't really care. I pay cash.