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

[Speakpigeon]

"What's the difference between an orange?"

Well that's precisely why the law of identity is nonsense. It asks "what's the sameness between an orange?"

No, it doesn't. Rather you just don't understand what the Law of Identity means.
Even though I know you have all the necessary concepts ready at your disposal.
Maybe it's a bit too profound, though.
What's blocking your mind?
EB

[Logik]

All there is is an idea, the idea of bananas or the idea of apples. The idea of bananas is best described as an association of more basic ideas, like the mental visualisation of one or several bananas, perhaps the idea that it's a fruit, probably some idea as to the typical size of a banana etc.
You could think of that as the conjunction of several predicates. So?

No. I would think of it as an abstract class called a banana. With individual properties which are themselves abstract classes.
And then I would use INSTANTIATION to create one instance of one particular banana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_ ... r_science)

There is the abstract class "Banana".
There is the abstract class "Color"
Bananas have color
There is A particular banana.
There are the 10 bananas in my fridge.

Code: Select all

class Color(object):
    def __init__(self, name):
        self.name = name

class Banana(object):
    def __init__(self):
        self.color = Color('Yellow')


A = Banana()
print(A.color.name)

Fridge = []
for i in range(10):
   Fridge.append(Banana())

Why an empty set?
I definitely believe there are things in the world that are bananas as I think of them. Not only it's not an empty set but it's a set that contain all the bananas that exist, that have existed and that will exist. It's a lot of bananas. Nothing like an empty set.
So why an empty set according to you?

Well, I just figured you would be consistent. When you speak of "ALL" X you spoke of sets. It doesn't matter.

I am OK with that! Indeed, it is a lot of bananas! How many?
How do you express an undeterminate set in logic?
Is the undeterminate set of Apples the same as the undeterminate set of Oranges?

You're not making sense.
Every one of your lines here is somehow wrong.

And YET you can't tell me how, right? That SOMEHOW showing you how expressive English is, and how unexpressive your logic is.
It has a very limited grammar/semantics with which to construct your ideas.

I am giving you every day English sentences and concepts to translate into your logic and it's tripping you up.

I know WHY it's tripping you up - that's WHY I am doing it.

Most people will believe there are bananas. As a matter of fact, I eat one every day!
What does it mean to talk about bananas in the abstract?
EB

We are doing it right now!!!! What does it mean to you? We are talking about bananas abstractly!
To me it means to be able to talk about the concept of a banana. And so I need a conceptual meta-language. I have one!

Doesn't it bother you that you don't seem to have the faintest of ideas about how your own mind works?
It's just a computer. Maybe you should study computer science, eh?

[surreptitious57]

An actual banana is concrete but the word banana is abstract so that is the difference
All physical objects that have a label / descriptor attached to them share this duality

Language is the conceptual means that human beings use to describe the physical world
It is the formalisation of thought and the most formalised language of all is mathematics

[Logik]

An actual banana is concrete but the word banana is abstract so that is the difference
All physical objects that have a label / descriptor attached to them share this duality

OK. How do you express abstracts in logic?

What is your meta-language to speak ABOUT abstracts?

[Logik]

No, it doesn't. Rather you just don't understand what the Law of Identity means.

Very good. If you do then explain to us what it means.

[surreptitious57]

How do you express abstracts in logic ?

What is your meta language to speak ABOUT abstracts ?

Logic is the foundation of mathematics and mathematics is the most rigorous language there is

One can speak about abstracts using non mathematical or mathematical language [ or both but one will be superior ]
It does not matter in principle which one is used since every language is both abstract as well as describing abstracts
It only matters with regard to the degree of rigour employed and here mathematics is way more rigorous than non mathematics

[Logik]

Logic is the foundation of mathematics and mathematics is the most rigorous language there is

One can speak about abstracts using non mathematical or mathematical language [ or both but one will be superior ]
It does not matter in principle which one is used since every language is both abstract as well as describing abstracts
It only matters with regard to the degree of rigour employed and here mathematics is way more rigorous than non mathematics

Perfect that definition works for me. Now. Could we stop speaking abstractly about the abstract? Can we get concrete about the abstract?

Could you please concretely express the abstract concept of a banana in logic.

[surreptitious57]

Could you please concretely express the abstract concept of a banana in logic

You can not concretely express an abstract concept in logic or in any language
However I can express the abstract concept in logic which is this : B = BANANA

[Logik]

You can not concretely express an abstract concept in logic or in any language
However I can express the abstract concept in logic which is this : B = BANANA

So your abstraction expresses absolutely nothing about the concept than the word already does?!?!? That's useless!

How about this?

I conceptualize a banana as a fruit that has color, taste, smell, ripeness, cultivar and whatever other properties I might come to think of later.

Code: Select all

##### Abstract concept for a fruit
class Fruit():
  pass
  
#### Abstract concept of banana which a type of fruit
class Banana(Fruit):
   def __init__(self):
     self.taste = None
     self.color = None
     self.smell = None
     self.ripeness = None
     self.cultivar = None

And then I can go on to talk about any particular banana like this.

Code: Select all

# Instances of actual bananas.
A = Banana()
B = Banana()
C = Banana()

You are no classical logician! You THINK like me and I am a type-theorist.
You are trying to SPEAK like a classical logician and it prevents you from being able to say anything.

Speak English - it's better than classical logic

[surreptitious57]

I conceptualize a banana as a fruit that has color taste smell ripeness

S = SMELL [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]
T = TASTE [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]
C = COLOUR [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]
R = RIPENESS [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]

[Logik]

I conceptualize a banana as a fruit that has color taste smell ripeness

S = SMELL [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]
T = TASTE [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]
C = COLOUR [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]
R = RIPENESS [ BETWEEN 0 / I ]

OK these are dangling. Not associated with the banana in any way.

As soon as I add more concepts you are going to have to explain the relationships between them.

A wet dog has a smell and color also. Maybe even a taste! But it has no ripeness! What now?

And also observe that as soon as I say "The dog smells bad" D = S[0]
and "The banana smells bad" B = S[0]

Then Dog = Banana again. What kind of fucking logic is this?!?!?

[surreptitious57]

As soon as I add more concepts you are going to have to explain the relationships between them

A wet dog has a smell and color also . Maybe even a taste ! But it has no ripeness ! What now ?

These questions can be more easily answered using non formal non mathematical language
Adjectives are excellent descriptors for emphasising the differences between experiences
Computer programmes / mathematical algorithms are too formal for this so are unsuitable

A computer cannot really understand the difference between the smell of a dog and the smell of a banana

[Logik]

These questions can be more easily answered using non formal non mathematical language
Adjectives are excellent descriptors for emphasising the differences between experiences
Computer programmes / mathematical algorithms are too formal for this so are unsuitable

Exactly! So fuck classical logic and stick to intuitionistic/paraconsistent logic, English.

You contradict yourself. So what? Language is a beautiful mess. Humans are a beautiful mess.

A computer cannot really understand the difference between the smell of a dog and the smell of a banana

Yes it can, but electronic noses are an entirely different topic of discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_nose

[anne]

i see

[henry quirk]

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

So, mebbe Logik's point is 'pull your head from your keister and look around'.

If so: that ain't half-bad advice.