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

[Logik]

You avoid the issue, you lost

The issue is that I am waiting for you to formalize the argument using the grammar/semantics of classical logic.

Do I need to remind you what the title of this thread is?

well tell me, how do you formalize "made of particles"?

You tell me, classical logician!

I don't have a fucking clue! That's why I use Lambda calculus and reject Aristotle's religion.

[Atla]

The issue is that I am waiting for you to formalize the argument using the grammar/semantics of classical logic.

Do I need to remind you what the title of this thread is?

well tell me, how do you formalize "made of particles"?

You tell me, classical logician!

I don't have a fucking clue! That's why I use Lambda calculus and reject Aristotle's religion.

The answer is you can't really do it, so English will have to suffice.
I described it in English using classical logic. If you are too dumb to understand, your problem.
Can you show the contradiction? You can't because there isn't any.

[Logik]

The answer is you can't really do it, so English will have to suffice.
I described it in English using classical logic. If you are too dumb to udnerstand, your problem.
Can you show the contradiction? You can't because there isn't any.

That's how you defend your religion, eh?

By refusing to type your formalism into a computer. So that it spits the error at you.

[Atla]

The answer is you can't really do it, so English will have to suffice.
I described it in English using classical logic. If you are too dumb to udnerstand, your problem.
Can you show the contradiction? You can't because there isn't any.

That's how you defend your religion, eh?

By refusing to type your formalism into a computer. So that it spits the error at you.

If you were actually a programmer you would know that computers don't understand "made of particles" (yet).

[Logik]

If you were actually a programmer you would know that computers don't understand "made of particles" (yet).

You can just abstract it to return whatever you want.

Like this: https://repl.it/repls/FavoriteKindheartedCoolingfan

Too bad you can't do this in your religion. Dumb Aristotelian.

P.S I am not a programmer. I am systems engineer. I break/fix systems.

Logic is a system. That's why I can break yours.

I can break mine too (but I am not going to tell you how)

[Atla]

If you were actually a programmer you would know that computers don't understand "made of particles" (yet).

You can just abstract it to return whatever you want.

Like this: https://repl.it/repls/FavoriteKindheartedCoolingfan

Too bad you can't do this in your religion. Dumb Aristotelian.

Your program has again absolutely nothing to do with what is discussed. You are an idiot through and through.

[Logik]

Your program has again absolutely nothing to do with what is discussed. You are an idiot through and through.

If you want to save face, just say so. It's OK to be wrong. Your brain has a bug - it's not your fault nature fucked up.

The program behaves EXACTLY as it's supposed to!

Jane = Jane => True (when comparing the same Jane to itself)
Jane = Jane => False (when comparing the two Janes to each other).
Proton = Proton => True (when comparing the two protons to each other)
Proton = Proton => True (when comparing the same proton to itself)

Of course, for the sake of preserving your religion - you are welcome to deny it.

[Arising_uk]

That's what I've been doing all along, so?

Show me a formal expression. Two Janes in Classical Logic.

Jane(a).
Jane(b).
?

[Atla]

Your program has again absolutely nothing to do with what is discussed. You are an idiot through and through.

If you want to save face, just say so. It's OK to be wrong. Your brain has a bug - it's not your fault nature fucked up.

The program behaves EXACTLY as it's supposed to!

Jane = Jane => True (when comparing the same Jane to itself)
Jane = Jane => False (when comparing the two Janes to each other).
Proton = Proton => True (when comparing the two protons to each other)
Proton = Proton => True (when comparing the same proton to itself)

The program knows nothing about what a human or a proton is.
Or that a proton is 1 particle, a human is more like 10^21 or so particles.

Really just how deep a whole can you dig for yourself?

[Logik]

Jane(a).
Jane(b).
?

The above is not classical logic.

Classical logic does not have functions in its grammar.

[Logik]

The program knows nothing about what a human or a proton is.
Or that a proton is 1 particle, a human is more like 10^21 or so particles.

So what? I can model ALL of that information in the code.

Would you like me to?

Einstein's equations don't know what "gravity" is either but they compute the results.

Really just how deep a whole can you dig for yourself?

As deep as it needs to! And then I come out unscathed.

I have the technical know-how, you are just a sophist.

That's the difference between science and philosophy.

[Atla]

The program knows nothing about what a human or a proton is.
Or that a proton is 1 particle, a human is more like 10^21 or so particles.

So what? I can model ALL of that information in the code.

Would you like me to?

Really just how deep a whole can you dig for yourself?

As deep as it needs to! And then I come out unscathed.

I have the technical know-how, you are just a sophist.

You do realize that anyone can look at your claims and your programs and see that you are insane, right? This is a public forum after all.

[Arising_uk]

Show me a formal expression. Two Janes in Classical Logic.

Jane(a).
Jane(b).
?

Classical logic does not allow for functions.

Eh!? It allows for predicates which some have claimed can be equivalently represented by functions but I'm not sure about that but I thought classical logic allows for instantiations but if you prefer;
∃x (Jane(x)).
∃y(Jane(y)).

[Logik]

Eh!? It allows for predicates which some have claimed can be equivalently represented by functions but I'm not sure about that but I thought classical logic allows for instantions but if you prefer;
∃x (Jane(x)).
∃y(Jane(y)).

Are you perhaps appealing to 1st order logic?

That allows for functions. It's also complete-but-undecidable. http://kilby.stanford.edu/~rvg/154/handouts/fol.html
You can't make any evaluations in it - only make declarative statements, so it's useless for reasoning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decidability_(logic)

[Logik]

You do realize that anyone can look at your claims and your programs and see that you are insane, right? This is a public forum after all.

What, you have resorted to shaming me now?

Did you run out of ad hominems?

It's 2019. Any 15 year old who has done high-school programming can tell that you are the idiot.

The world has left you behind - sorry.