Philosophy guide: seeking bright minds for review

[MineMineMine]

Bwahahahaha! Your new avatar totally had me scratching my head for several minutes trying to figure out how the hell you got yourself banned. Good show, man.

he got me too^^

Er, how is that?

the way you described it, it's a form of binary logic (only true or false). And binary logic makes no statement of effect and cause. Your atomar basic statements are grinded down to true and false and when you combine them you can find other statements to be true or false.
Using that method you don't know why your initial presumptions had that said value or you have no way of finding out if you combined them correctly.


Layman terms: You can't test for semantic properties solely using syntax.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baops.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_(logic)

 

[Andiferous]

The equation rather tests itself, it's a bit like recognising 2 + 2 is a false equation. Just because 6 and 8 don't make 19, doesn't make math suffer a bad reputation for the error.

If you make up silly variables, you're really cheating, which rather nullifies the exercise. Logic is like a magic argument cruncher, and if you can verify the variables are true to the best of our knowledge, if you work the math of the variables correctly, it always works. You're always supposing that IF such and such is TRUE, and such and such is TRUE, then such and such must be TRUE. Fake variables make fake arguments.

The truth and clarity of logic is computer food and the stuff of basic programming. It is absolute and hypothetical. It is only true or false. And you need true variables to have a true answer.

Or so I think, I hope it made sense....

 

[MineMineMine]

The equation rather tests itself, it's a bit like recognising 2 + 2 is a false equation. Just because 6 and 8 don't make 19, doesn't make math suffer a bad reputation for the error.

If you make up silly variables, you're really cheating, which rather nullifies the exercise. Logic is like a magic argument cruncher, and if you can verify the variables are true to the best of our knowledge, if you work the math of the variables correctly, it always works. You're always supposing that IF such and such is TRUE, and such and such is TRUE, then such and such must be TRUE. Fake variables make fake arguments.

whoa. The equation i showed is a true equation, in formal logic.
I don't think that there is an useful application of mathematical formal logic in philosophy because philosophy is more about semantics and less about syntax.

And formal logic is not just hypothetical.
You can get true answers with false variables.


There is an existing formal binary logic in science and it is used in research which solely relies on true and false variables as you suggest. I think you should look that a bit up to understand my point.

The truth and clarity of logic is computer food and the stuff of basic programming. It is absolute and hypothetical. It is only true or false. And you need true variables to have a true answer.

Or so I think, I hope it made sense....

No. Programming needs also a "i don't know" or "bottom". And it's NOT hypothetical or absolute. As they are also Trinary computers.

 

[Andiferous]

Would really like to see what you mean, I am curious. As I said, it's been a while and I need help.

 

[MineMineMine]

I probably was a bit unclear. I'm sorry for that



I agree that we need logic.
But i disagree on your mathematical model.
There already is a mathematical formalism, Boolean Algebra/Logic, which is unfit for philosophy. And i am also trying to point out how that specific formalism is called and explain how it works.


Mostly what i linked above. I'll copy and edit the article a bit around to make my point.

Boolean algebra is a logical calculus of truth and false values.
It resembles the algebra of real numbers, but with the numeric operations of multiplication xy, addition x + y, and negation −x replaced by the respective logical operations of conjunction x∧y, disjunction x∨y, and negation ,¬x. The Boolean operations are these and all other operations that can be built from these, such as x∧(y∨z).

The ∧ operator is defined by:
true ∧ false = false
false ∧ false = false
true ∧ false = false
true ∧ true = true

So only if i hang two true statements together I'll get a new true statement. But i cannot express WHY i combined those statements and neither tells me this logic HOW i combine these statements. NOR which statements i should combine.
It only tells me, if i combine those what will i get?

Let's assume that the sentences:
The ground is below
The sky is blue

are both true. If i combine those two:
The ground is below ∧ The sky is blue

i get
true ∧ true = true.

That this is a true statement. But i get no Information why or how those two sentences are related.


edit: should use proper sentences o.0
Also there is a basic sentence in Computer Science i sadly can't find but it somewhat like this:"Non-trivial properties of a algorithm cannot be proven." Or my computer cannot know if it is doing the right thing, or calculate the meaning of life*.



*42

 

[creativesoul]

That is because it lacks epistemic criterion.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I intend to formalize the bolean logic in my introduction to digital systems tutorial. (I just haven't got arround to it because I'm lazy, and I haven't got time to go arround with that, but I intend to). But it will not come for a long time.
The opration you are trying to describe it is called an "and". Imagine that you have statment A and B.
The statment
A "and" B
is true if both statments A and B are simultaneously true.
While with the operation "or", the statment:
A "or" B
is true if at least one of the statments (either A or B) is true.

Ex. "Lizy is a girl" and "John is a boy". Is only true if the statment "Lizy is a girl" is true and the statment "John is a boy" is also true.
In contrast the statment
"Lizy is a girl" and "John is a girl" would be a false statment if the statment "John is a girl" is false.

For or:
"Lizy is a girl" or "John is a boy". Is a true statment if at least one of the statments, either "Lizy is a girl" is true or "John is a boy" is true
In contrast the statment
"Lizy is a girl" or "John is a girl" would still be true as long as the statment "Lizy is a girl" is true even if "John is a girl is false"
For a statment like this to be false:
"Lizy is a boy" or "John is a girl", both statments "Lizy is a boy" and "John is a girl" must be simultaneously false.

 

[Andiferous]

hich is unfit for philosophy. And i am also trying to point out how that specific formalism is called and explain how it works.
...

So only if i hang two true statements together I'll get a new true statement. But i cannot express WHY i combined those statements and neither tells me this logic HOW i combine these statements. NOR which statements i should combine.
It only tells me, if i combine those what will i get?

I see what you are saying, and yes perhaps it is in the terminology. IF A and B and B and C THEN (therefore) A and C

IF and THEN being somewhat qualifying and standard in philosophy, and forcing a connection between statements.

Master_Ghost_Night

I see what you mean about the A and B means both are true;
but A or B only requires one statement of truth. Makes sense, although at first my brain did a bit of a woah!

Yes, could see that applying too. Thank you.

Creativesoul; yes.

Edit: I almost forgot:

Nice incorporation of 42, there. You of course win!

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I see what you are saying, and yes perhaps it is in the terminology. IF A and B and B and C THEN (therefore) A and C

IF and THEN being somewhat qualifying and standard in philosophy, and forcing a connection between statements.

What do you mean? This doesn't make much sense. "And" and "Or" are still the same words as we use them in english, not something different.

I see what you mean about the A and B means both are true;
but A or B only requires one statement of truth. Makes sense, although at first my brain did a bit of a woah!

What, that didn't made any sense.
A is an individual statment
B is another individual statment
"A and B" is another statment, but a statment made with the conjugation of the statments A and B trough the method "and". Which we will call statment C (i.e C=A*B, *-represents "and")
A*B doesn't mean that both A and B are true. What I said was that the statment C (=A*B) is only true is statment A is true simultaneously while B is also true. If either A or B is false, then C is false.
It maybe that you haven't made a typo or something, but I needed to clear that out.
I hope this is enough and I am not forced to rush my tutorials to formaly explain this in a detailed fashion.

 

[Andiferous]

Guess I hurried too.

I believe you said that 'and' is used to indicate both must be true and present together in an equation for the answer; 'or ;used to indicate only one or the other (choice) necessary to be present in an equation. Like, milk or juice is breakfast (simplistically). So randomly, if you have juice, you've had breakfast. If you have milk, you have breakfast. If you have neither, no breakfast - but both not required in 'or' comparisons; you only need pick one.

Hard to understand and explain. I did dabble in shell for a bit so I think that may help just a little. :/

Weirdly it's coming back.

Sounds confusing, reading it back.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Here is an exaple.

"A cow is an animal" and "a dog is an animal". This statment is true (because both a cow and a dog are animals, i.e. true)
"A orange is an animal" and a "dog is an animal". This statment is false (because orange is not an animal, i.e. false)
"A cow is an animal" or "a dog is an animal". Is true
"A orange is an animal" or "a dog is an animal". Is true (becausea dog is an animal, i.e. true)
"A orange is an animal" or "a lemon is an animal". Is false (because neither oranges or lemon are animals, i.e false)

damn it, i need to really formalize this.

 

[Memeticemetic]

damn it, i need to really formalize this.

I disagree. You've stated it about as succinctly as possible in plain English, making it fairly universally understandable. Putting it in formal logical structure adds another level of abstraction, requiring the reader to either know, or learn, the language of formal logic. Not that it's a particularly difficult language to learn, but no need to scare the straights away, I say.

 

[MineMineMine]

Edit
WARNING what follows is a lengthy discussion between Master_Ghost_Knight and myself. Please skip to mid/end of page 3

The opration you are trying to describe it is called an "and".

∧is the mathematical symbol for "and" <-<

damn it, i need to really formalize this.

it's formal in the gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baops.gif (it won't let me post it because it can't determine size :_( )

So randomly, if you have juice, you've had breakfast. If you have milk, you have breakfast. If you have neither, no breakfast - but both not required in 'or' comparisons; you only need pick one.

yes
Formal that would be:
breakfast = juice v milk





v is the or operator.

This is getting off topic towards a boolean logic lesson. It should be more can we use it in Philosophy (i still say no)

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

What are you saying? Bolean logic is logic. And it should be used in phylosophy because it allows us to relate statments and check its veracity. I use it all the time.

 

[MineMineMine]

What are you saying? Bolean logic is logic. And it should be used in philosophy because it allows us to relate statements and check its veracity.

it only tells us what happens when we put those sentences into relation. But it does not tell us how we should put them into relation.

A good example for this is the implication "->"
it looks like this
true -> true = true
false -> true = true
false -> false = true
true -> false = false




If i take a false statement like if Sheeps eat wolves and wolve eat sheep follows the sky is red into formal logic i get:
false and true = false
false -> false = true

Therefore the sky is red.

In boolean terms all this is absolutely fine. It does not give us a guideline how to determine atomic true or false nor tell us how we can combine statements to be semantically correct.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

This is what I have feared. I didn't mentioned anything but.
-> is not a bolean operator.
false->false doen't result in true
Nor does true->true,
however true->false does result in false.

-> means implication. When I say "A->B" it means that "if A is true then B must be true" (and also "if B is false then A must be false"), this is what this relation says (A requiers B).
It doesn't say anything in regards to what happen if "A is false but B is true".

The proper statment that refers to the diagram you posted should have been "not A or B" and not "A->B".
they just over lap only when after analysing all 4 instance of A and B it produces that diagram (and then you can say that the statment "A->B" is true, when you have not known that appriori).

Secondly your usage is wrong.

You have statments A, B and C. What you have is "A and B ->C", where A is false. "A and B ->C", is a statment on its own that we can call it D.
The statment "A and B" is false, but that doesn't tell you anything about the validity of C (i.e. the sky is red) because "A and B ->C" is consistant (i.e. true) either C is true or false. So you actually can't say anything about C (either the statment "A and B ->C" which is also statment D is true or not).

Edit: Also to nail this, there is another relation "<->" (or more generaly "<=>", yeah it is the same one you used to solve equations) that is equivalent to "A->B and B->A" (and strangely this statment is called equivalent).
If we say that C=(A<->B)
Which could land us a combination.
A=1; B=1; C= -
A=0; B=0; C= -
A=1;B=0; C=0;
A=0; B=1; C =0;

And you requier to get the combination
A=1; B=1; C= 1;
A=0; B=0; C= 1;
A=1;B=0; C=0;
A=0; B=1; C =0;
To say that A<->B is a true statment had you not known that apriori.

 

[MineMineMine]

(a)look the definition of implication up.
It will be in line with my definition.

no A or B is also a definition of ->.

<-> is an entirely different operator. It is named equivalent because it tests if two statements have the same truth value. Thus are the same.


You are attacking my formal definition. Which is kind of a miss because my objection is still that it does not give us a useful base work to work from.

My main objection is that there is no formal restriction on how i can apply variables. If i think that wolves and sheep eating each other are in relation eating the sky, i can put them into terms and calculate the outcome.

A LOT of philosophy went from wrong base assumptions and/or putting unrelated stuff into relation. This form of logic does not deal with that and is therefore not very useful

 

[Nashy19]

I see it as common sense, I can easily understand the scenarios but I struggle to read (while understanding) the equations, I think that less consciously my brain's turning them into scenarios to be understood. :shock:

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

(a)look the definition of implication up.
It will be in line with my definition.

no A or B is also a definition of ->.

<-> is an entirely different operator. It is named equivalent because it tests if two statements have the same truth value. Thus are the same.


You are attacking my formal definition. Which is kind of a miss because my objection is still that it does not give us a useful base work to work from.

My main objection is that there is no formal restriction on how i can apply variables. If i think that wolves and sheep eating each other are in relation eating the sky, i can put them into terms and calculate the outcome.

A LOT of philosophy went from wrong base assumptions and/or putting unrelated stuff into relation. This form of logic does not deal with that and is therefore not very useful

First of all I have shown you 2 way why your argument was wrong, not 1. One is a confusion of what of what the term used actualy means, and the other would be an actual problem of function even if your definition was to be acepted.

I'm not even going to look up where did you get your definition. It is just wrong.
Your usage of the term implication, simply does not align with the diagram you have propoused.
When you say that "wolve eat sheep implicates the sky is blue", even tough both statments can be true (i.e. "wolves eat sheep" and "sky is blue") there is no assesment either or not the "sky being blue" is a necessary requierment for the statmet "wolves eat sheep" to be true. Similarly the statment "sheep eat wolves implicates that the sky is red", even tough both individual statments are wrong there is nothing that says that the entire statment has to be right. Just because it is true that the statment "sky is red" is false and that the statment "sheeps eats wolves" is also false, it doesn't mean that it is in fact true that one statment is false because the other is also false.
Rendering your usage of the term "implication" wrong.

To take this point home, lets try and see what happens when restate your sentence in what you claim tobe an equivalent form:
not (Sheeps eat wolves and wolve eat sheep) or the sky is red
The statment here is true, however notice that this is true independently of the truth value of the statment "the sky is red" (it can either be true or false for all I care), so if you didn't know its truth state apriori you will still not know it either after the analysis.

 

[MineMineMine]

First of all I have shown you 2 way why your argument was wrong, not 1. One is a confusion of what of what the term used actually means, ...

No sorry you are just plain wrong.
First of all you posted this

The proper statment that refers to the diagram you posted should have been "not A or B" and not "A->B".

if we make a table like this we get all possible combinations covered ( i use | as a separator)
A | B
T | F
T | T
F | F
F | T

Than not A would be
not A | B
F | F
F | T
T | F
T | T

So we get
False or False = False
False or True = True
True or False = True
True or True = True

note that the only time we get false is when the original A was true. And we get the same table as i posted earlier (even though in different order)

it looks like this
true -> true = true
false -> true = true
false -> false = true
true -> false = false

I'm not even going to look up where did you get your definition. It is just wrong.

I'm using the official definition. So you are saying all scientists using this is wrong?

Your usage of the term implication, simply does not align with the diagram you have proposed.

Let's see

When you say that "wolves eat sheep implicates the sky is blue", even tough both statements can be true (i.e. "wolves eat sheep" and "sky is blue") there is no assessment either or not the "sky being blue" is a necessary requirement for the statement "wolves eat sheep" to be true.

thats right.

Similarly the statement "sheep eat wolves implicates that the sky is red", even tough both individual statements are wrong there is nothing that says that the entire statement has to be right.

The entire statement renders true under formal logic though

Just because it is true that the statement "sky is red" is false and that the statement "sheeps eats wolves" is also false, it doesn't mean that it is in fact true that one statement is false because the other is also false.

The truth values depend on their relations to each other.

Rendering your usage of the term "implication" wrong.

I used my implication mathematical correct. You are trying to proof my semantics wrong, even though my whole point is that formal logic fails to correctly tackle semantics.