An introduction to formal logic [Archive]

Hellbound

28th October 2002, 10:45 PM

From your own statements, Franko:

1. Atoms obey TLOP (or, A is less than T)

Agreed, no one argues this.

2. You are made of atoms (or, Y=A)

Here, we have a problem. While the statement is correct, the mathematical representation does not reflect the statement, and this is why it becomes a fallacy of composition. Y=A would mean you ARE an atom, not you are made of atoms. The correct mathematical representation, then, is Y>A.

3. You obey TLOP (or, Y is less than T)

Now, this conclusion is true, but not for the reasons your syllogism states. No one is claiming we do not obey the laws of physics (or, more correctly, that we are not constrained by the laws of physics). What people are trying to tell you is that your logic does not support this:

1. A is less than T
2. Y>A
3. Y is less than T

Statements 1 and 2 do not lead to 3.

A more correct syllogy would be:

1. You obey the laws of physics
2. The laws of physics are determinisitic.
3. You are deterministic.

Now, that would correct the logical fallacy; however, now you have the burden of proving that the laws of physics are indeed determinisitic, a matter that has not been settled in a long time, and which centers on certain debates about the various uncertainty principles.

Franko, your logic was flawed, even if the conclusion was valid. One should be willing to examine one's own arguments for logical error and fallacy.

Now, it's a rather simple and straightforward matter to prove that free will doesn't exist (if this is really what you want to do). You must first disprove dualism (because a spiritual or mental existence seperate or undetectable from the world we experience allows for the concept of a soul that allows free will) and to prove that TLOP is purely deterministic.

Several pages of several threads threads have been wasted arguing over that flawed syllogism, when it could have simply been corrected. Instead, several weeks or more have been wasted in a non-argument, and neither side has shared any views or provided any worthwhile information.

Hopefully you will take my corrections in the spirit in which they were posted (to move the argument along and, perhaps, make it productive).

Another tactic might be to ask everyone to simply accept, for the sake of your argument, that free will is an illusion and does not exist, then work from there to present your case. If you are interested in sharing your knowledge, this would be a far more productive path.

Taking an immediate adversarial attitude to anyone who points out percieved errors or asks for clarification will not lead to any sharing of knowledge, and is, I suspect, the main reason for your treatment here. This last paragraph is, of course, simply my opinion, but it is offered in good faith. I do hope you consider it.

Sincerely,
Huntsman

chulbert

28th October 2002, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Are you claiming that You are NOT made of atoms?

Are you claiming that Atoms do NOT obey the Laws of Physics

Are you claiming that YOU CAN DISOBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS???

OKAY!!! I hear you! Just do IT ... and shut me up once and for all!

What is with you nutty A-Theists?

Put up or shut up!

I do not believe anyone is necessarily questioning the truth of your syllogism. They are merely pointing out its logical error, thus rendering it invalid as any sort of proof of anything.

Fade

28th October 2002, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

I have found plenty of the sites that have the logical fallacies, but I want to find out what it is rather than what it is not.

Okay, I am honestly confused now.

What "it" are you referring to now? Fallacy of Composition, or Logical Fallacies in general?

Please ask your question again :confused:

Hellbound

28th October 2002, 11:10 PM

I think he's looking for a primer on valid logic, rather than a listing of fallacies.

At least that's my understanding.

Fade

28th October 2002, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
I think he's looking for a primer on valid logic, rather than a listing of fallacies.

At least that's my understanding.

Oi, I wouldn't know where to start. I am the last person you want teaching!

Here's a site that does a run down of what was in a lot of my books.
http://hemsidor.torget.se/users/m/mauritz/math/logic/infolo.htm

a_unique_person

28th October 2002, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Fade

Oi, I wouldn't know where to start. I am the last person you want teaching!

Here's a site that does a run down of what was in a lot of my books.
http://hemsidor.torget.se/users/m/mauritz/math/logic/infolo.htm

Thanks, that's more like it. Other sites I found were a bit more opaque.

Fade

29th October 2002, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Thanks, that's more like it. Other sites I found were a bit more opaque.

Logic can get very dry, but I am happy to be of service.

The most basic way of looking at logic, is to think of it as a consistency check. It sorts out what is and is not consistent, but can't be used by itself to determine truth :)

Peter Soderqvist

29th October 2002, 01:16 AM

TO FADE

Fade wrote 10-29-2002 04:49 AM: That's basically the whole of it. C is a letter. A is a letter. T is a letter. CAT is not a letter.

Soderqvist1: CAT is only letters here, because you have not defined the word Cat!

Fade even wrote: While it is possible to arrive at a conclusion which is broadly correct, it is still a fallacy to arrive at the conclusion due to assuming it's property. For instance: Cats are animals. Kittens are animals. A litter of kittens are animals.

Soderqvist1: You have defined Cats as animals here, not letters, and therefore; Cats are animals, and kittens are animals, and a litter of kittens are animals too! These letters of Cat is a word, which is only a symbol for a real thing in the world, some animal, and the word cat is not the object we are speaking about, because a map is not the territory, it is only an description, not the territory itself, the reason is simple because; I am a owner of a map here, but I don't own any country, hence it follows from that, that the map is not the territory, and furthermore; a map cannot describe all its territory, because our world is a dynamic entity, and thus changes all the time, but a real map is static in its context, but the materials which this map is made of, fade away through time, as all real objects do!

Formal logic has its limits, for instance, all Cretans are liars, and when one Cretan say; I am a liar, he is not a liar, because he has admit that he is liar, and if it is lie, it is the truth anyway, that a Cretan is a liar! And the genuine skeptic who has alleged that, that he doesn't know anything, it is not truth, because he knows that, that he doesn't know anything! ;)

Fade

29th October 2002, 01:36 AM

I don't know if you're being facetious or not Peter, but:

Soderqvist1: You have defined Cats as animals here, not letters, and therefore; Cats are animals, and kittens are animals, and a litter of kittens are animals too!

While the conclusion is true, it doesn't follow from the premise. One can not assume a property of the whole solely by it's component parts.

A litter of kittens are animals because of the definition of "animal" not because kittens are animals.

Many of us excercise illogic in our every day lives, because the end result works, regardless of the error.

Peter Soderqvist

29th October 2002, 03:23 AM

TO FADE

Fade wrote 10-29-2002 08:36 AM: While the conclusion is true, it doesn't follow from the premise. One cannot assume a property of the whole solely by its component parts. A litter of kittens are animals because of the definition of "animal" not because kittens are animals. Many of us exercise illogic in our every day lives, because the end result works, regardless of the error.

Soderqvist1: My way of arguing is not holistic, nor reductionistic, but something between these extremes! Cat, or act, t a c , are only undefined letters in our premise number1.

Cats are obviously animals by your definition inside your premise number 2.

Premise number 1 is not premise number 2, they are therefore only consistent on their own levels, but they are illogical as you have said, if we intermix, or confuses them, so don't do that! ;)

Kullervo

29th October 2002, 06:19 AM

The problem with many of these allegedly fallacious arguments is that the premisses are true and the conclusion is true, but the conclusion does not follow by necessity from the premisses.

You must examine the formal structure of the argument to spot the fallacy, not the truth value of the propositions.

The form should be

If the premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true.

If the conclusion can be false while the premisses are true, then the argument is invalid. This is the basis for reductio ad absurdem.

From contradictory premisses, anything can be inferred.

A valid argument may contain false premisses and a false conclusion. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premisses. Logic doesn't generally care if the argument is sound, only that it is valid.
The fallacy of composition is a formal fallacy, like affirming the consequent, and has nothing to do with the truth of the component propositions.

Couple of fallacies and valid arguments for examples

Affirming the consequent:

If A then B
B
Therefore A - invalid.

Denying the consequent (modus tollens)

If A then B
Not B
Therefore not A - valid

Affirming the antecedant (modus ponens)

If A then B
A
Therefore B - valid

Composition

A (and B and C...) have property X
Y is made A (and B and C...)
Therefore Y has property X.

All three statements MAY be true, but the conclusion does not follow. (Hydrogen and Oxygen are gases at room temperature, water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, therefore water is a gas at room temperature)

Division
A has property X
A is made of B (and C and D...)
Therefore B (and C and D...) have property X. - Invalid

I got a million of them

Doubt

29th October 2002, 09:47 AM

Whitefork,

Keep posting like that and I am going to have to find my old text book just to keep up. I cannot remember the title, but the fallacy examples were funny. They even used the Marx Brothers for ambiguity:

I shot an elephant in my pajamas.

What was an elephant doing in your pajamas?

Kullervo

29th October 2002, 09:52 AM

Sounds like Pospesel's "Arguments", a fine book.

A favorite, from the comic Freddy (two brothers talking, about ages 4 and 5):

"If I had a nickel I'd be rich".
"No, if you had a nickel, you'd be poor".
"Yay! I AM rich."

Attrayant

29th October 2002, 12:14 PM

Here's my favorite. Not too dry, with some good examples.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Franko

29th October 2002, 09:23 PM

Huntsman,

Sorry I must have missed this …

From your own statements, Franko:

1. Atoms obey TLOP (or, A is less than T)

Agreed, no one argues this.

Good up to here … check!

2. You are made of atoms (or, Y=A)

Here, we have a problem. While the statement is correct, the mathematical representation does not reflect the statement, and this is why it becomes a fallacy of composition.

Wait a minute there … BUT THIS IS WERE THE ATHEISTS ARE WRONG. Because the Atheists are mixing up Atoms with TLOP. This Syllogism is ultimately about YOU, TLOP, and CONTROL, not about atoms. While it is TRUE that you are made up of more than ONE atom (and the syllogism is worded “Atoms” – plural) that fact does not alter the conclusion that one atom, or a group of atoms obeys the laws of physics. The syllogism is not saying YOU = 1 ATOM. It is saying that YOU = THINGS CONTROLLED BY TLOP.

If you have evidence that multiple atoms can disobey the laws of physics, then this premise in the syllogism would be invalid (and you Atheists would have a point), but as it stands there is NO EVIDENCE that more than one atom can disobey the laws of Physics. In fact, the exact opposite is TRUE, and it seems that individual atoms are if anything less predictable then groups of atoms.

Y=A would mean you ARE an atom, not you are made of atoms. The correct mathematical representation, then, is Y>A.

Only if you are going out of your way to NOT understand the terms involved. And ONLY if you have already decided that the syllogism is FALSE in advance.

3. You obey TLOP (or, Y is less than T)

Now, this conclusion is true, but not for the reasons your syllogism states.

No it is for exactly those reasons. BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism. The only reason the A-theists are putting up a fight, is because this directly refutes there “NO Evidence For GOD” nonsense.

Yeah … No evidence for God – If you are deliberately not looking or blind!

No one is claiming we do not obey the laws of physics (or, more correctly, that we are not constrained by the laws of physics). What people are trying to tell you is that your logic does not support this:

1. A is less than T
2. Y>A
3. Y is less than T

Statements 1 and 2 do not lead to 3.

If you say so. Defy the Laws of Physics and prove it.

A more correct syllogy would be:

1. You obey the laws of physics
2. The laws of physics are determinisitic.
3. You are deterministic.

Other than your is more confusing, and less people will understand it less clearly then mine. How does this prove the existence of “free will”, or support the assertion that your Car is more conscious then you are?

Now, that would correct the logical fallacy; however, now you have the burden of proving that the laws of physics are indeed determinisitic, a matter that has not been settled in a long time, and which centers on certain debates about the various uncertainty principles.

Really? Perhaps you can start by explaining where and how B.F. Skinner and 50+ years of empirical Behavioral research are all wrong???

Franko, your logic was flawed, even if the conclusion was valid. One should be willing to examine one's own arguments for logical error and fallacy.

Take your own advice A-Theist. Either that, or imagine in your head that you have actually refuted me on this point, or better still just imagine that you actually HAVE disobeyed the Laws of Physics!!!

Now, it's a rather simple and straightforward matter to prove that free will doesn't exist (if this is really what you want to do).

Sure … how about you demonstrate how easy it is to prove “God” doesn’t exist first … A-Theist?

You must first disprove dualism (because a spiritual or mental existence seperate or undetectable from the world we experience allows for the concept of a soul that allows free will) and to prove that TLOP is purely deterministic.

… Then you can disprove the existence of the “afterlife” for us …

Several pages of several threads threads have been wasted arguing over that flawed syllogism, when it could have simply been corrected. Instead, several weeks or more have been wasted in a non-argument, and neither side has shared any views or provided any worthwhile information.

Like I said … just keep telling yourself that A-Theism can’t be wrong! … it just CAN’T!!! Maybe if you keep wishing it will come TRUE, and you really will get to cease to exist just like you have always dreamed!

Hopefully you will take my corrections in the spirit in which they were posted (to move the argument along and, perhaps, make it productive).

Yes, I noticed your condescending “I’m a Superior A-Theists – we are never wrong” attitude a mile away.

Another tactic might be to ask everyone to simply accept, for the sake of your argument, that free will is an illusion and does not exist, then work from there to present your case. If you are interested in sharing your knowledge, this would be a far more productive path.

Why is it that A-Theists Illusions such as “free will” are acceptable, but Theist “illusions” such as “God” and “afterlife” are unacceptable? Why don’t you just say it – Your Religion is the One True Faith; Ergo it is BETTER than all of the Other Religions.

Don’t all religions claim that?

If you believe in “free will” then you define it – NOT ME! IF you are asserting the existence of “free will”, then you PROVE IT – NOT ME! The Burden of Proof falls on the claimant. You are claiming “free will” NOT ME! I don't even know what you mean when you use that term? To me it sounds like you are claiming you can make a 4-sided triangle, and none of you A-Theists can or will explain yourself. You always say "You (Franko) define "free will" for us!"

Absurd!

But If you really understood the first thing about Logic you would already KNOW this. Instead you make yourself look like an insolent little Nitwit, trying to lecture Me, on something you obviously don’t comprehend.

Taking an immediate adversarial attitude to anyone who points out percieved errors or asks for clarification will not lead to any sharing of knowledge, and is, I suspect, the main reason for your treatment here. This last paragraph is, of course, simply my opinion, but it is offered in good faith. I do hope you consider it.

Ahhh yes … you and your fellow A-Theists have showed such a willingness and openness to sharing. Next to your “open-mindedness”, kindness and respect I’d say it is your greatest virtue … :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Hellbound

29th October 2002, 09:36 PM

Franko,

Your comments are noted.

However, if you had read my post, I was trying to give you a supportable argument. I was arguing FOR your case.

I also tried to be civil and respectful.

I asserted nothing, I simply stated a way to correct the logic of the syllogism and to present your argument.
You appear to not be interested in logic.

You are already on my ignore list, as I predicted you would respond in this manner. I thought I would give you a chance at calm, rational discourse.

Look carefully at my post. I pointed out logical errors, but where did I assert anything?

I made no assertion that God doesn't exist, or that there is no afterlife.

I also made no assertion that I could "disobey TLOP"; in fact, I specifically and repeatably agreed that I could not.

I specifically listed free will as an illusion (you know, something that is NOT real). If you want to add God and afterlife to the list of illusions, I would wholeheartedly agree. Congratulations, Franko, you are now an atheist.

Your argument about your syllogism shows a complete lack of understanding of formal logic. I will not attempt to explain it again, as all you will do is rant and rave and spout your ignorance (in the technical sense).

My superior attitude was not because of my atheism or your lack thereof, but because of my greater understanding of logic, and your predictably childish and mundane response.

Goodbye, Franko. You will not recieve another reply from me. I attempted to help you, to give you a valid argument that might actually lead to an exchange of ideas and information, and would provide some support for your point of view.

I was met with your strawman arguments (falsly claiming I made arguments which I did not, and attacking those), your unbacked assertions (that your obviously flawed logic, shown to be flawed many times over, is somehow accurate and true), and your unwillingness to engage in conversation (preferring only insults, even when someone replies to you respectfully). These have marked you as beneath my interest.

Have fun with your Goddess. I'm too busy living a life to worry about your fantasy.

Franko

29th October 2002, 09:57 PM

I programmer's parlance, here is a clearer way to express My Syllogism:

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

or in common English:

1) Atoms a function of TLOP.
2) YOU a function of Atoms.
3) YOU a function of Atoms [which are] a function of TLOP.

okay … so technically I could have said YOU obey the Laws of Atoms[Which obey TLOP] , but who talks like that? Besides, its just splitting hairs?

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:04 PM

Huntsman,

Have fun with your Goddess. I'm too busy living a life to worry about your fantasy.

Thanks! … and You have fun with that whole “free willy”, meaningless, ultimately consequence free, existence until it ceases – okay?

I attempted to help you, to give you a valid argument that might actually lead to an exchange of ideas and information, and would provide some support for your point of view.

You have tried to help me? How, by convincing me, that myself, and everyone I care about will cease to exist?

… Thanks? :confused:

Goodbye, Franko. You will not recieve another reply from me.

Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Please Great Goddess … Don’t let me “receive” one either … Please Great Goddess …

evildave

29th October 2002, 10:12 PM

Oh, I see!

A clock has to be built of tiny CLOCK-shaped atoms that tick, and a computer has to be built of tiny COMPUTER-shaped atoms that compute.

That's why you think people are less than the sum of their parts; it's because they're made of PEOPLE atoms!

Perfectly sensible. Now it all 'makes sense'.

How could we have missed it?

a_unique_person

29th October 2002, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman
Franko,

I also tried to be civil and respectful.

Your first mistake.

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:14 PM

So evildave ... are you claiming you can violate the Laws of Physics or what?

You are almost completely incoherent now ...

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:16 PM

C_u_p

Your first mistake.

I notice you’re not rushing up to the front of the line to explain it.

I wonder why? Fate got your tongue?

Hehehehe … :D

evildave

29th October 2002, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Franko
So evildave ... are you claiming you can violate the Laws of Physics or what?

You are almost completely incoherent now ...

Well, if I'm made of "people" atoms, why I'm behaving like "people" atoms do. Isn't that what your silly-gism says?

Hellbound

29th October 2002, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Your first mistake.

I prefer not to think of it as a mistake. I will attempt a civil and respectuful discord, almost always, as my first attempt.

When that fails, there's no real reason to continue with that person, is there?

I have yet to find a situation where insults and arguments around a point, rather than discussions of a point, have been fruitful.

Don't take that the wrong way, mind you, I know some find it fun, and I'm not trying to take a superior attitude or anything. It's like poking the big mangy dog next door through the fence ;) Just not my thing.

It's sad, when you try to strengthen one's argument and the one you're trying to assist attempts to shoot you down for it.

Oh well, they say drowing people will often pull their would-be rescuers under with them. I have not the "swimming" skill to avoid that, so I bow out :)

Btw, what ya think of my new avatar? I'm proud of it. Wasted a good 30 minutes of company time for that :)

Franko

29th October 2002, 10:38 PM

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

What?!?!

... None of the bigmouths are going to show me the error?

:rolleyes:

a_unique_person

29th October 2002, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Franko
I programmer's parlance, here is a clearer way to express My Syllogism:

Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

or in common English:

1) Atoms a function of TLOP.
2) YOU a function of Atoms.
3) YOU a function of Atoms [which are] a function of TLOP.

okay … so technically I could have said YOU obey the Laws of Atoms[Which obey TLOP] , but who talks like that? Besides, its just splitting hairs?

I think that this is part of the problem.

The fallacy is based on composition, which as I understand it, says that atoms < TLOP, you = Atoms, you < TLOP. However, the problem with this is that we are not saying where in the 'less than' range we are talking about.

E.g. U < A < P.
Also possible is A < U < P.

That is, we can manipulate atoms according to the laws of physics.

We are also not considering other laws that exist.

Me=f(atoms*g(laws of physics)) has been pointed out to be a fallacy also.

That is, we are also subject to the economic situation, which also depends on the physical world existing. However, this world of economics also has its own laws and random acts.

The laws of physics also include the laws of thermodynamics. These laws state that everything goes from order to disorder.

However, we are adept at working around these laws, by creating a lot of order, such as jets and skyscrapers. We do use up a lot of energy in the process, creating a lot more disorder than order, but the price is seen as worth it.

evildave

29th October 2002, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

What?!?!

... None of the bigmouths are going to show me the error?

:rolleyes:

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

It's bull-pucky because YOU said it. ;)

Wasn't that easy?

a_unique_person

29th October 2002, 11:20 PM

Originally posted by Huntsman

Btw, what ya think of my new avatar? I'm proud of it. Wasted a good 30 minutes of company time for that :)

The smiley. George Orwell would have put it in 1984 if he knew about it.

Fade

30th October 2002, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
TO FADE

Soderqvist1: My way of arguing is not holistic, nor reductionistic, but something between these extremes! Cat, or act, t a c , are only undefined letters in our premise number1.

You misunderstand.
C is a letter.
A is a letter
T is a letter.

Here I have defined all these things as letters. They are letters. K?

Cat is, therefore, a letter.

Cat is a word, not a letter. It is composed of letters, but is not in and of itself a letter.

If you want to argue semantic ********, please spare us all.

But, my cat example, and my SALT example are examples of illogic, mainly Fallacy of Composition.

Cats are animals.
Kittens are animals.
A litter of kittens are animals

While the conclusion is true, this syllogism is false. As I have plainly demonstrated in my CAT and SALT example, this line of thinking doesn't hold water. Sure, you can come to a conclusion that is objectively true, but to do so in this manner is NOT LOGICAL.

Cats are obviously animals by your definition inside your premise number 2.

Cats and Kittens are animals. Maybe my syllogism wasn't the best example, which is why I chose to put a better example later.

How about:

Cats are animals.
Kittens are animals.
A soup of made of cats and kittens is an animal

Better?

Premise number 1 is not premise number 2, they are therefore only consistent on their own levels, but they are illogical as you have said, if we intermix, or confuses them, so don't do that! ;)

Mind repeating this in english?

Franko

30th October 2002, 02:12 PM

A_U_P,

That is, we can manipulate atoms according to the laws of physics.

We are also not considering other laws that exist.

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS.
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP. (same as You are a function of TLOP)

So hows does the discovery of “new laws” of physics (???) change anything in the above syllogism?

Is this the A-Theism of the Gaps argument again? One day “Science” will prove that our religion is TRUE? In the mean time – take our word for it!!! HAVE FAITH IN THE DOGMA OF A-THEISM!

Me=f(atoms*g(laws of physics)) has been pointed out to be a fallacy also.

That is, we are also subject to the economic situation, which also depends on the physical world existing. However, this world of economics also has its own laws and random acts.

So you are claiming that economics defies the Laws of Physics?

When is your peer-reviewed paper on this being published?

The laws of physics also include the laws of thermodynamics. These laws state that everything goes from order to disorder.

However, we are adept at working around these laws, by creating a lot of order, such as jets and skyscrapers. We do use up a lot of energy in the process, creating a lot more disorder than order, but the price is seen as worth it.

You A-Theists don’t understand the first thing about the Laws of Thermodynamics. But that point aside … what is your evidence for “free will”? What makes you believe that you have more “free will” then the Moon does?

evildave

30th October 2002, 02:38 PM

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS.
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP. (same as You are a function of TLOP)

The 'The Laws Of Physics' only describes atoms and their interactions with each other. It does not CAUSE it. I am not a part of 'The Laws Of Physics', because I do not exist in a pile of paper and theories.

Why don't you just 'fix' your silly-jism to say what you mean:

YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!
YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!
YOU ARE A FUNCTION OF ATOMS!

or perhaps

YOU OBEY TLOP!
YOU OBEY TLOP!
YOU OBEY TLOP!

You're already halfway there, anyway.

Martin

30th October 2002, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Franko
BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism

All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore Franko's syllogism is invalid

Franko

30th October 2002, 03:07 PM

Ohhh martinm …

I had always suspected that you were a closet “free willyier” …

All men are mortal
Socrates was a man
Therefore Franko's syllogism is invalid

All men are mortal (is that TRUE?)
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was mortal

So what does this have to do with the fact that your religion doesn’t have a leg to stand on?

TLOP controls YOU.
YOU control a CAR.

Tell me why you believe that your CAR is more conscious then you are?

Why do you believe that TLOP is less conscious?

Franko

30th October 2002, 03:09 PM

He (evildoughboy) cannot resist. He is powerless to resist. Just watch for yourself ...

Martin

30th October 2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Franko
Ohhh martinm …

I had always suspected that you were a closet “free willyier” …

That would make you both suspicious and wrong. Where did I say anything about free will?

So what does this have to do with the fact that your religion doesn’t have a leg to stand on?

Qutie simply, a syllogism can have true premises, a true conclusion and still be invalid.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
Therefore the Earth is round

TLOP controls YOU.
YOU control a CAR

Two statements inconsistent. If all my actions are completely controlled by TLOP, it cannot meaningfully be said that I control anything. More correctly, TLOP would control the car/me system.

Tell me why you believe that your CAR is more conscious then you are?

I don't.

Why do you believe that TLOP is less conscious?

Absent evidence of any fundamentally inexplicable phenomena, I assume that the Universe admits a complete logical description. Therefore there exists a set of information which is the minimum neccesary to fully describe it. Do you agree so far?

Franko

30th October 2002, 03:31 PM

Martinm,

Qutie simply, a syllogism can have true premises, a true conclusion and still be invalid.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
Therefore the Earth is round

No … because the conclusion must flow from the premises (it must consist only of terms defined in the premises). My syllogism conforms to that rule. Yours here does not. Obviously you understand no more about syllogisms or Logic then any other brain-dead A-Theist I have talked to.

Two statements inconsistent. If all my actions are completely controlled by TLOP, it cannot meaningfully be said that I control anything. More correctly, TLOP would control the car/me system.

So what? You control your car, but really TLOP controls your CAR by controlling YOU – SO WHAT???

How does that makes you more conscious then TLOP?

I assume that you agree your CAR is less conscious then you? Why is there a different standard for TLOP?

Is it because you already decided that there is NO GOD?

Franko:
Tell me why you believe that your CAR is more conscious then you are?

martinm:
I don't.

Franko:
Why do you believe that TLOP is less conscious?

martinm:
Absent evidence of any fundamentally inexplicable phenomena, I assume that the Universe admits a complete logical description. Therefore there exists a set of information which is the minimum neccesary to fully describe it. Do you agree so far?

If you are saying that ultimately there is an equation (or algorithm) which describes all motion (all events) in the Universe then I am in complete agreement.

… you are headed for Solipsism with this argument though …

… perhaps that algorithm is already in your head … generating this universe all around you from your subconscious mind … then you would have Free will, but me and all the rest of the figments … would not …

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:09 PM

Originally posted by Martinm
Qutie simply, a syllogism can have true premises, a true conclusion and still be invalid.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 8
Therefore the Earth is round

Not a syllogism, and not a (valid) argument.

Try this:

2+2 = 4
2+2 = 5

therefore the earth is round. (or, therefore the earth is not round)

In symbolic terms P and not-P implies Q.

Valid argument either way. Anything follows from contradictory premisses.

In your example, the denial of the consequent does not imply that the premisses are contradictory (reductio).

Franko

30th October 2002, 04:15 PM

whitehead,

2+2 = 4
2+2 = 5

therefore the earth is round. (or, therefore the earth is not round)

I'd bet a hundred bucks you are NO computer programmer.

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:25 PM

You lose. I am.

This truth table:

(P) (Not-P) (P and Not-P) (Q) (P and Not-P implies Q)

T F F T T
F T F T T
T F F F T
F T F F T

All possibilities are represented here.

(P) (Q) (P implies Q)
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

You can program this. It works. You can do it in Excel for heaven's sake.

Franko, please read a book on symbollic logic. Heck, even WFF n Proof has this one. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

(not very readable, but set it out in colums.)

evildave

30th October 2002, 04:36 PM

(Not that Franko would pay up.)

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:39 PM

(Rainman voice) "I'm an excellent programmer".

where do you think unemployed logicians end up anyway?

Martin

30th October 2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Franko
No … because the conclusion must flow from the premises (it must consist only of terms defined in the premises). My syllogism conforms to that rule. Yours here does not.

Try to pay attention. I was responding to your statement - "BOTH premises are correct; and the conclusion is ALSO correct. Ergo, a valid (TRUE) syllogism" - and demonstrating that it is false, a point on which you clearly agree, or you wouldn't mention that the conclusion must follow from the premises.

Obviously you understand no more about syllogisms or Logic then any other brain-dead A-Theist I have talked to.

Allow me to refresh your memory -

Originally posted by MartinM
Atoms obey TLOP
You are made of atoms
You obey TLOP

There are several problems - some mere semantics, for instance - I'm pretty sure I am made partly of ions, too. Some are more fundamental - the two premises do not contain between them a pair of codivisional classes. The major premise and the conclusion both contain 'things which obey TLOP'. The minor premise and the conclusion both contain 'you'. But the major and minor premises contain between them 'atoms' and 'things made of atoms'. These are not codivisional - that is, when you separate 'atoms' from the set of all things, the set 'things made from atoms' is not created in the division. In order to make the argument valid, you would have to add the line - 'all things made from atoms obey that which atoms obey'. That fixes the main problems, but not the semantic ones. I would suggest a simpler approach -

All physical objects obey TLOP
You are a physical object
You obey TLOP

That is certainly a valid syllogism. Now all that remains is to define 'physical', and determine whether or not a person can be described in purely physical terms. If not, the minor premise is false

Originally posted by Franko
The reason I prefer my variation is because I believe “atoms” are more precisely defined within this context then the term “physical” is in your version. As you mention although technically flawed, overall my syllogism is still correct. While your version may be technically more accurate, it is linguistically more unclear in my assessment

(emphasis mine)

So what? You control your car, but really TLOP controls your CAR by controlling YOU – SO WHAT???

How does that makes you more conscious then TLOP?

My point is simply that if TLOP controls me entirely, there can be no analogy drawn between the relationships in the TLOP/me and me/car systems.

I assume that you agree your CAR is less conscious then you? Why is there a different standard for TLOP? Is it because you already decided that there is NO GOD?

No. I assume it. That's what agnostic atheism means.

If you are saying that ultimately there is an equation (or algorithm) which describes all motion (all events) in the Universe then I am in complete agreement… you are headed for Solipsism with this argument though …perhaps that algorithm is already in your head … generating this universe all around you from your subconscious mind … then you would have Free will, but me and all the rest of the figments … would not …

Now - this information set must contain a complete description of conciousness, yes?

Martin

30th October 2002, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
In your example, the denial of the consequent does not imply that the premisses are contradictory (reductio).

Nor is it meant to...

Kullervo

30th October 2002, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by Martinm

Nor is it meant to...

Of course. How could I be so dense?

Franko

30th October 2002, 06:44 PM

Martinm,

My point is simply that if TLOP controls me entirely, there can be no analogy drawn between the relationships in the TLOP/me and me/car systems.

How so? By decree?

It’s a hierarchy. TLOP controls YOUR MIND controls APPENDAGES controls CAR.

What you seem to be saying is that in a game of D&D there can be no analogies drawn between the Dungeonmaster, the Character, and the Horse (the Character is riding).

You guys are the “Logical” ones?

Franko:
I assume that you agree your CAR is less conscious then you? Why is there a different standard for TLOP? Is it because you already decided that there is NO GOD?

martinm:
No. I assume it. That's what agnostic atheism means.

Ohhh martinm!!! … I had no idea you were another one of these nitwits!

Let me see if I can play this game too!

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 37 (Because I assume it!)

How can?

TLOP controls YOU = (YOU SUPERIOR)
YOU control CAR = (YOU SUPERIOR)

Is that just like …

YOU control EVERYONE (YOU SUPERIOR)?

For the Goddess’ sake Man -- Have you NO sense of consistency?!?!

Now - this information set must contain a complete description of conciousness, yes?

Depends on what you mean? Despite whiteforks assertion that he is a “programmer” (whitefork, if its really true – please stop telling people!) he certainly wouldn’t understand it, but the equation could be real, real simple. Maybe its just got a lot of recursion in it … like the Mandelbrot set?

… but I’d be careful going down that road … A-Theist … you won’t like where it leads …

evildave

30th October 2002, 06:58 PM

4 + 4 = 37 (Because I assume it!)

If you assume '4' represents "Four pieces of glass, larger than one square inch", then you take four more and drop them all in a bucket, and count the result, this outcome is actually possible.

Why do you ASSUME "numbers" are all there is to any given problem?

Pure logic is pitiful when its assumptions are never tested in the real world. Only the most foolish of people would believe complex assertions based on untested (UNTESTABLE?) assertions are correct.

Franko

30th October 2002, 09:15 PM

In response to the recent slew of emails -- NO! evildave is NOT really my sock puppet -- he just pretends to be (wink, wink) ;) ...

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 06:06 AM

Hey let's have some more fun. An argument:

Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
Some Saudis are terrorists.

Valid or invalid? Show your work. Remember, both premises and the conclusion are true, and the terms in the conclusion appear in the premises, and there is "flow".

Another:

An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is a book.
This has covers, pages and a binding.

Valid or invalid?

Another

An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is not an object with covers, pages, and a binding.
This is not a book

Valid or invalid?

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Despite whiteforks assertion that he is a “programmer” (whitefork, if its really true – please stop telling people!)

tell them to stop paying me. [edited to remove gratuituous insult]

And you are completely ignorant of the principles of symbollic logic, given the nature of your assertions. [leaving this one in however]

There are books. Read one. Or back up your absurd definition of validity.

CWL

31st October 2002, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Forget the syllogism ...

Just any one of you A-Theists (just one) disobey the Laws of Physics.

If you are claiming that you do NOT obey the Laws of Physics, then kinding demonstrate this -- what is so hard to understand?

Are you claiming that You are NOT made of atoms?

Are you claiming that Atoms do NOT obey the Laws of Physics

Are you claiming that YOU CAN DIOBEY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS???

OKAY!!! I hear you! Just do IT ... and shut me up once and for all!

The problem Franko is that the syllogism does not prove what you say it does. You want to add further conclusions after "you obey the laws of physics", as I understand it

1) "therefore you have no free will"; and
2) "therefore TLOP is your God".

The above will be true or false depending on how we define "free will" and/or "God". Further it will depend on how we define "TLOP" ("map" or land, "remember") and "obey" ("are restricted by" or "follow the orders of" etc.).

The point is my friend that in itself the syllogism proves nothing. It does not contain any infallible logical truth as you seem to claim.

Sorry Franko. Back to the drawing board.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:00 AM

CWL,

The problem Franko is that the syllogism does not prove what you say it does.

How so? Point out the error.

You want to add further conclusions after "you obey the laws of physics", as I understand it

Then obviously You don’t understand it.

What is your definition of “free will”?

What is your evidence for “free will”?

YOU CLAIM FREE WILL – YOU PROVE FREE WILL!!!

1) "therefore you have no free will"; and
2) "therefore TLOP is your God".

The above will be true or false depending on how we define "free will" and/or "God". Further it will depend on how we define "TLOP" ("map" or land, "remember") and "obey" ("are restricted by" or "follow the orders of" etc.).

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP

So how are unknown subtles in the Laws of Physics going to ever provide you with “free will”? How are they going to change this Syllogism? And more importantly WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR UNKNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS???

The point is my friend that in itself the syllogism proves nothing.

Nice assertion – try proving it for a change.

It does not contain any infallible logical truth as you seem to claim.

It contains the Truth – despite Your transparent claim to the contrary.

IF THERE IS AN INVISIBLE FLAW THEN KINDLY POINT IT OUT OR KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.

Sorry Franko. Back to the drawing board.

Your devout Faith in the Cult of A-Theism is secure CWL. You are a True Religious fanatic – just like whitefork.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:01 AM

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:05 AM

Whitehead,

tell them to stop paying me. [edited to remove gratuituous insult]

I honestly have trouble believing you are a programmer.

You do realize, that using a web browser, or Microsoft WORD does not actually qualify as “programming”?

And you are completely ignorant of the principles of symbollic logic, given the nature of your assertions. [leaving this one in however]

Yes … I realize that you keep telling me that there is an “invisible” flaw, but I am waiting for you to actually PROVE IT. Since you seem unwilling or unable I can only assume that this “flaw” is simply a figment of your imagination – a delusion on your part.

Religious nitwits such as yourself are very prone to delusions.

There are books. Read one. Or back up your absurd definition of validity.

Yeah … you’re a-Theism has an “invisible” flaw too, but I can’t tell you what it is. Read the Bible for a while (or some other Religious books) then you should be able to see your error.

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:19 AM

23 years IBM mainframe systems, assembler, COBOL, REXX, CICS, IDMS.

And you? Visual Basic, I recall.

About that truth table?

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:25 AM

Whitefork,

23 years IBM mainframe systems, assembler, COBOL, REXX, CICS, IDMS.

unbelievable …

And you? Visual Basic, I recall.

yeah … and some other stuff …

About that truth table?

I realize that you desperately need to refocus attention away from your “invisible free willy God” A-Theist, but I am only interested in demonstrating what a bunch of fanatics your Cult is. Your agenda of diversion is counter to my agenda.

However if you would care to demonstrate your evidence for “free willy”?

… or if you would care to attempt and explain how your “magic” A-theist vision works which allows you to see the Emperors New Clothes and “invisible” Logic flaws that ordinary mortals cannot see.

When did you first develop these “magic powers”? Do only A-Theist have these magic powers to see invisible things like “free willy”? Do you think that perhaps Christians have a similar “magic power” that allows them to see their “invisible God” as well?

So what is the difference between your religion and theirs really?

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:27 AM

Wrong again, Franko.

All I care about is the validity of your argument. That free will, laws of physics, god, business is of no interest to me.

Your argument. Please demonstrate its validity.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:29 AM

2 + 2 = 4

demonstarte the validity of that whitehead ...

I suspect there is an invisible flaw

point it out for us!!!

Victor Danilchenko

31st October 2002, 09:30 AM

whitefork

tell them to stop paying me. [edited to remove gratuituous insult]Remember, Frankissimo is a programmer who doesn't even know what a Bubblesort is.

And you are completely ignorant of the principles of symbollic logic, given the nature of your assertions.Frankie didn't even know that "=>" stands for logical implication, he thought is was "greater or equal" sign -- in a context where implication was unambiguously meant.

There are books. Read one. Or back up your absurd definition of validity.He doesn't need a book, he needs a brain transplant.

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:35 AM

I have more confidence in Franko than you do, Victor.

Validity is not an easy concept, but it can be grasped. Patience is perhaps the key.

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:40 AM

2 + 2 = 4 is not an argument.

Franko

31st October 2002, 09:50 AM

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactly what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t not equal 4.

Completely absurd, but if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” …

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are …

Kullervo

31st October 2002, 09:56 AM

Franko, 2 + 2 = 4 is not a syllogism.

2 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.
4 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your argument is valid.
Please try harder, and don't change the subject.

How about my "Muslims/Saudis/terrorists" argument?
Valid or not?

Franko

31st October 2002, 10:53 AM

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactky what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t NOT equal 4.

Completely absurd, but … if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” … ???

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are … Religious Fanatics!!!

Franko

31st October 2002, 10:54 AM

Here is exactly what you are saying Whitehead …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * *
2) 4 = * * * *
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

I (whitefork) contend that there is an invisible flaw in this syllogism. Now I cannot (or will not) articulate exactky what that flaw is, so NOW the burden of proof falls upon YOU to demonstrate that there is NO “flaw”.

That is EXACTLY what you and the A-Theists are claiming.

2 + 2 does not equal 4 unless you can prove that it doesn’t NOT equal 4.

Completely absurd, but … if that is what you A-Theists call “Logic” … ???

Keep saying it whitefork … it exposes you A-Theists Culty’s for exactly what you are … Religious Fanatics!!!

Franko

31st October 2002, 10:56 AM

Whitehead (A-Theist Religious Fanatic and “free willy” believer):

2 + 2 = 4 is not a syllogism.

Sure it is …

Syllogism: (assuming +, = are known)

1) 2 = * * (premise)
2) 4 = * * * * (premise)
3) 2 + 2 = 4 (conclusion)

2 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.

Sure it is.

2 = * *

The equals (=) implies the relationship between symbol (2) and object (* *).

4 is not a statement asserting a relationship between subject and predicate.

You understanding nothing about how computers actually work – do you Whitehead?

evildave

31st October 2002, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Franko
In response to the recent slew of emails -- NO! evildave is NOT really my sock puppet -- he just pretends to be (wink, wink) ;) ...

Yes, Franko 'puh-sychically' promised me a car when he wins that Randi prize for remote controlling people.

Franko

31st October 2002, 11:39 AM

I swear ... I didn't make him say that! ;)

I never make him say NOTHING ... he says Nothing all on his own ...

CWL

1st November 2002, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Franko
How so? Point out the error.

The syllogism is true or false depending on how we define "TLOP" and "obey". There is that, and the fallacy of composition. The sum may very well be greater than the parts. "We" as a whole are not bound to act like atoms because as a whole we are different from atoms.

Do you like salt? Would you consume sodium or chloride?

The further conclusions you seem to add (that we have no free will and that TLOP is a god) do not necessarily follow.

Then obviously You don’t understand it.

What is your definition of “free will”?

What is your evidence for “free will”?

YOU CLAIM FREE WILL – YOU PROVE FREE WILL!!!

I perceive myself making conscious choices. This is as true as saying "I perceive myself thinking". The statement "I think therefore I am" also looses its meaning from the viewpoint that it is all just the "deterministic result of chemical reactions in your brain" as you put it.

Why "deterministic"? If there are many possible results, you can only predict that one such result will occur - you cannot predict which one. Ever heard of chaos theory? There's your free will. There's your randomness and unpredictability.

You really don't see the dichotomous nature of the universe do you? Maybe you have been programming a bit too much?

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS
YOU are a function of ATOMS [which are] a function of TLOP

So how are unknown subtles in the Laws of Physics going to ever provide you with “free will”? How are they going to change this Syllogism? And more importantly WHAT IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR UNKNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS???

I am not sure what you mean with "UNKNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS". TLOP are "what is", "how the world functions", "what is physically possible" etc. "Map" or "land" Franko, make up your mind!

If we accept that consciousness is a property allowed by TLOP, a result of matter compiled and combined in a certain way, how does TLOP prevent a conscious being from making conscious choices between available options?

Nice assertion – try proving it for a change.

Well, I certainly cannot see that your syllogism proves anything. If you claim that it does, kindly explain what it is meant to prove.

It contains the Truth – despite Your transparent claim to the contrary.

What truth? That there is a certain nature of things? That's not very revolutionary, is it?

IF THERE IS AN INVISIBLE FLAW THEN KINDLY POINT IT OUT OR KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF.

If there is an invisible evidence of anything, kindly share it with everyone.

Your devout Faith in the Cult of A-Theism is secure CWL. You are a True Religious fanatic – just like whitefork.

Yep, me and High Priest Forkster chanting to our beloved A-God all day long.

Seriously Franko, ever heard of the psychological phenomenon of projection?

Franko

1st November 2002, 02:05 PM

CWL,

The syllogism is true or false depending on how we define "TLOP" and "obey". There is that, and the fallacy of composition. The sum may very well be greater than the parts. "We" as a whole are not bound to act like atoms because as a whole we are different from atoms.

So you are claiming that TLOP does not exist, or is poorly defined?

As for “obey” I have defined that term so many times. I can’t imagine you don’t understand what it means.

Just Disobey the Laws of Physics if you claim it can be done.

ATOMS are a function of TLOP
YOU are a function of ATOMS
YOU are a function of ATOMS a function of TLOP.

The fact that you don’t know TLOP completely has no baring on this algorithm.

I perceive myself making conscious choices. This is as true as saying "I perceive myself thinking". The statement "I think therefore I am" also looses its meaning from the viewpoint that it is all just the "deterministic result of chemical reactions in your brain" as you put it.

So in other words you freely acknowledge it is nothing more than Wishful Thinking on your part.

Why "deterministic"? If there are many possible results, you can only predict that one such result will occur - you cannot predict which one. Ever heard of chaos theory? There's your free will. There's your randomness and unpredictability.

When you start using words like unpredictable, chaos, “free will”, and random, what you are claiming is that there is NO underlying logical process; therefore, it must be illogical – that is – Supernatural, or Magical.

Is that your idea of “Science” religious fanatic?

You really don't see the dichotomous nature of the universe do you? Maybe you have been programming a bit too much?

The Universe is NOT Magical, simply because you don’t want it to be Logical.

If we accept that consciousness is a property allowed by TLOP, a result of matter compiled and combined in a certain way, how does TLOP prevent a conscious being from making conscious choices between available options?

Because there are NO OPTIONS. What evidence have you presented for “Options”? Does the Moon have Options? Why do you think tat you have options, and the Moon does not? Does a Sponge have options? Do Bacteria have options? How about Dogs and Cats? If you jump from the roof of a tall building do you instantly lose your “free will”, or do you still have options?

Well, I certainly cannot see that your syllogism proves anything. If you claim that it does, kindly explain what it is meant to prove.

Unless you have EVIDENCE which contradicts it (which all you A-Theist CLAIM, but never manage to produce), then it means you don’t have “Free Will”!

What is your Evidence for “free will” CWL? Your “free will” seems even more invisible than the Christian God to me. Should I take your assertion on Faith?

What truth? That there is a certain nature of things? That's not very revolutionary, is it?

I guess that would depend on if you believe you have “free will” or not?

If there is an invisible evidence of anything, kindly share it with everyone.

It is very simple CWL – if you are claiming to have “free will”, then kindly provide your evidence for it. Otherwise, withdrawn your claim, and concede defeat like a real Man would do.

Seriously Franko, ever heard of the psychological phenomenon of projection?

Very familiar …

Projection = uncontrolled expressions of ones own mental state or thoughts.

CWL

2nd November 2002, 06:14 AM

The world is NOT a computer program. End of story. This is not the Matrix.

Back to the drawing board Franko.

Franko

2nd November 2002, 08:11 AM

CWL,

The world is NOT a computer program. End of story.

Do you get to decide?

I thought you said Solipsism wasn’t TRUE? Have you suddenly realized that we are all just figments of your imagination after all? Now you can just decree what is TRUE, and what is FALSE?

This is not the Matrix.

The evidence refutes your claim.

If you believe that reality is determined by your Wishful Thinking then the world is NOT the “Matrix”; otherwise, you have some explaining to do … A-Theist. You can start by explaining exactly why everything isn’t all just Energy. Explain where Einstein went wrong?

Back to the drawing board ...

Hey! … that’s what I was gonna say to You … CWL!

Martin

2nd November 2002, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Franko
It’s a hierarchy. TLOP controls YOUR MIND controls APPENDAGES controls CAR.

That's a meaningless statement unless TLOP does not fully determine my actions. If I have no choices at all, I can make no choices as to the state of the car. TLOP determines it all.

What you seem to be saying is that in a game of D&D there can be no analogies drawn between the Dungeonmaster, the Character, and the Horse (the Character is riding)

The DM allows the Player to make choices, so there is no analogy at all.

Ohhh martinm!!! … I had no idea you were another one of these nitwits!

By your definitions, I'm agnostic.

2 + 2 = 4
4 + 4 = 37 (Because I assume it!)

I actually have no problem with that, so long as you're consistent.

TLOP controls YOU = (YOU SUPERIOR)
YOU control CAR = (YOU SUPERIOR)

In a Universe where my actions are completely determined by TLOP, in what way am I superior to my car?

Franko

2nd November 2002, 10:33 PM

Martinm,

Franko:
TLOP controls YOUR MIND controls APPENDAGES controls CAR.

Martinm:
That's a meaningless statement unless TLOP does not fully determine my actions. If I have no choices at all, I can make no choices as to the state of the car. TLOP determines it all.

What does that mean? I thought you were a determinist? I thought you didn’t believe in “free will”? (A-Theist!)

TLOP is obviously the ultimate controller of the action. Unless you are claiming your “consciousness” somehow has “magic” control over the chemical processes occurring in your brain?

How does this make your Car more conscious then you? How does any of this makes TLOP less conscious then YOU? Your point eludes me …

The DM allows the Player to make choices, so there is no analogy at all.

That’s not really an answer to the question? Are you a determinist or NOT? Do you believe in “free will”, or do you just pretend NOT to, so the A-Theists can claim to have ONE member who isn’t a “free willyier”?

By your definitions, I'm agnostic.

Praise the Goddess! … Because … in all honesty … I’ve always liked you Martin! … plus … people I respect, have said good things about you.

I actually have no problem with that, so long as you're consistent.

We’re in enough hot water for the moment …

In a Universe where my actions are completely determined by TLOP, in what way am I superior to my car?

So are you claiming that you are no more conscious then your Car is? Try telling that to the Cop next time you get pulled over … let me know how it works out …

:rolleyes:

Martin, my friend ... I detect that you are too intelligent to repeat a big mistake twice, don't let dogma win over common sense.

3rd November 2002, 12:01 PM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

How many more thread hi-jackings must we suffer through? This absolute, maniacally ranting crank has succeeded in derailing yet another attempt at an informative discussion.

Should we not consider requesting a more acitve moderator role on JREF? As well as rules limiting the ability of an a**hole such as this one to hijack thread after thread?

The topic here was a request to understand formal logic. The thread hardly got off the ground before the idiot started his same old rant. It is boring. It is manical. He is crazed. He is nothing but an insulting, obscene, puny mind not even capable of understanding the topic under discussion.

But worse, he has no interest in understanding. His goal is to never be transfromed by knowledge. He goal is to never be confused by the facts.

I hereby call for more active moderators on JREF, and limitations of franko and franko-like nonsense.. As well as that of serpent and wratith and all other franko sock-puppets. I DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECTED TO HIS INSANITY ANY LONGER. CAN SOMEBODY LIMIT HIM OR CORRAL HIM OR DO SOMETHING SO WE CAN HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION ON THIS BOARD. CAN WE AMEND THE RULES ONCE AGAIN? HOW ABOUT ANTI-SPAMMING? THIS CRANK REGULARLY POSTS THREE, FOUR and FIVE POSTS IN A ROW, WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VENOMOUS CONTENT. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THIS CRAP? GET RID OF IT. GET RID OF HIM.

Cheers,

Soubrette

3rd November 2002, 12:24 PM

Bill

I can understand your frustration but this is one thread surely which is actually not being hijacked - it may have gone down a road not intended by the a_u_p but it did so almost immediately, there was no attempt to police the thread by a_u_p so I can only assume the slight detour was ok by him.

So the irony is that it is you and I that appear to be thread jacking

Sou

Franko

3rd November 2002, 12:32 PM

I hereby call for more active moderators on JREF, and limitations of franko and franko-like nonsense.. As well as that of serpent and wratith and all other franko sock-puppets. I DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECTED TO HIS INSANITY ANY LONGER. CAN SOMEBODY LIMIT HIM OR CORRAL HIM OR DO SOMETHING SO WE CAN HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION ON THIS BOARD. CAN WE AMEND THE RULES ONCE AGAIN? HOW ABOUT ANTI-SPAMMING? THIS CRANK REGULARLY POSTS THREE, FOUR and FIVE POSTS IN A ROW, WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VENOMOUS CONTENT. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THIS CRAP? GET RID OF IT. GET RID OF HIM.

Hey!!! … So you are DOUBT??? BullyBoy!

The fact of the matter is … your ridiculous Religion has failed you. You can’t refute my arguments logically. So you are left screaming “Burn the Heretic!!! Burn his writings!!!! Ban his voice from our presence!!! The THOUGHT, the very Notion that someone else might read them and be turned away from the ONE TRUE FAITH OF A-THEISM is just driving you insane – isn’t it?

Begone Troll!

www.infidels.org

Go preach to the rest of the religious fanatics ... leave us Skeptics in peace.

Soubrette

3rd November 2002, 12:33 PM

And you Frank just make things worse :rolleyes:

Sou

Franko

3rd November 2002, 12:39 PM

My apologies for daring to speak my mind.

I guess only A-Theists have that priviledge here?

3rd November 2002, 02:10 PM

Originally posted by Soubrette
Bill

So the irony is that it is you and I that appear to be thread jacking

Sou
Point taken, Sou,

So let us ask A_U_P. DId this conversation get hi-jacked? Did you not want to find out about logic? Were Franko's posts on your point, or did they detract from them?

Has this thread been hi-jacked?

And, sou, look at the fallacy of compositon thread. Franko and hammy openly congratulate themselves on that hi-jacking.

Cheers,

Soubrette

3rd November 2002, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Point taken, Sou,

So let us ask A_U_P. DId this conversation get hi-jacked? Did you not want to find out about logic? Were Franko's posts on your point, or did they detract from them?

Has this thread been hi-jacked?

And, sou, look at the fallacy of compositon thread. Franko and hammy openly congratulate themselves on that hi-jacking.

Cheers,

:eek: there are many pages on there - which page in particular do you want me to look at?

Why not just stick Frank on ignore? And only answer on topic for all threads?

I personally don't intend to do it - sometimes Frank engages with someone on an interesting level - like Billy Joe recently, Darat and Loki before that.

Also I'm appalling for staying on topic too:)

Sou

hammegk

3rd November 2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

And, sou, look at the fallacy of compositon thread. Franko and hammy openly congratulate themselves on that hi-jacking.

hammegk: Well, I admit it WAS your thread, but face it, hi-jack is complete.

The Question is "To Be, or not To Be" at the moment. A firm yes to "to be". How about you?

TTFN, catch ya on the flip side....

I "congratulate" myself? Franco? by stating a fact? The thread was gone for pages, sorry.

BTW, it's Mr. Hammy to you, *******. ;)

As a final thought have you actually seen an A_U_P topic that SHOULDN'T have been hijacked? :D

Franko

3rd November 2002, 02:29 PM

Blah blah blah A-Theism is the one true Faith -- all other Theists are idiots ... blah blah blah ...

That pretty much summarizes every single one of Bullyhoyt's posts I have ever read. What exactly does he think HE is contributing here?

There are 25 other A-Theists fanatics all chanting the same mantra. God forbid anyone should dare speak out against the sacred Orthodoxy!

Mossy

4th November 2002, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette

Why not just stick Frank on ignore? And only answer on topic for all threads?

Sou

Sou,

Try this, just to see what it is like, put Franko on ignore and follow a few of the threads.

It doesn't matter whether he is on ignore or not - the threads degenerate into the same thing, every single time. The topic of the thread is lost - sometimes after only a few posts. Very disappointing for some of the threads that seemed to have had potential.

Putting him on ignore doesn't make the threads any more coherent or interesting.

As for the idea, "it is up to the person who started the thread to police it" - doesn't work. Tried it several times, was even told to "**** off" by your witty friend (who isn't really an *******, he just does it for the reaction - right?).

-Ed

a_unique_person

4th November 2002, 05:00 AM

When Franko returned, and people welcomed him back, I could not believe it. JK might be a bit out there, but he sticks to predictable topics, and even says more than the same thing over and over. Carlos Sweat at least sticks to the one thread. Franko just dominates.

Victor Danilchenko

4th November 2002, 07:55 AM

Mossy

Try this, just to see what it is like, put Franko on ignore and follow a few of the threads.

It doesn't matter whether he is on ignore or not - the threads degenerate into the same thing, every single time. The topic of the thread is lost - sometimes after only a few posts. Very disappointing for some of the threads that seemed to have had potential.That's most definitely true. I've had Franko on "ignore" for a while, but I still keep seeing good threads go up in flames for no good reason. It's not even entertaining -- it's just dull and boring and repetitious. I imagine there is only so many ways others can reply creatively to the same old regurgitated inanity.

Victor Danilchenko

4th November 2002, 07:58 AM

a_unique_person

When Franko returned, and people welcomed him back, I could not believe it.Ditto. I very much believe in giving people second chances, but the welcome Franko received upon his return made me think that some rosy-colored-glasses manufacturer out there is making a killing.

Come on, people, we are supposed to be rational and realistic, right?.. Franko has made his nature quite clear. If he changes, I wanna see the evidence of change before proclaiming my joy at his return.

Franko

4th November 2002, 08:37 AM

A-un-unique-a-theist cried:

When Franko returned, and people welcomed him back, I could not believe it.

Poor Baby! … if only everyone thought exactly like you and little Vicky D. the world would “truly” be a better place!

Damn the stupid idiots who are too moronic to see that you and Vicky claim to be Superior! If only everyone followed the “One True Faith”!

Alas

Perhaps you should try a different venue where everyone shares your same religious ideals … ?

www.infidels.org

This is a Skeptics board after all.

Franko

4th November 2002, 08:42 AM

Mosshead,

Try this, just to see what it is like, put Franko on ignore and follow a few of the threads.

It doesn't matter whether he is on ignore or not - the threads degenerate into the same thing, every single time. The topic of the thread is lost - sometimes after only a few posts. Very disappointing for some of the threads that seemed to have had potential.

Hey its not my fault that people ask me questions. Most of my posts are responses to another posters post. How often do I actually start a thread?

Putting him on ignore doesn't make the threads any more coherent or interesting.

Coming from a guy who had trouble comprehending the 3 little pigs it doesn’t really surprise me that you have difficulty following along.

As for the idea, "it is up to the person who started the thread to police it" - doesn't work. Tried it several times, was even told to "**** off" by your witty friend (who isn't really an *******, he just does it for the reaction - right?).

What a hypocrite! Is that your way of demonstrating what a nice guy YOU are??? Gee, I with an attitude like that, I wonder why I treat you like the little sh*t that your are?

Fact is Mossy, you follow me around and respond to far more of My posts, then I do to yours. Personally, it’s a rare occasion that you say anything worthy of a response.

BTW – I’ve never had any trouble policing my threads. Maybe you are just a wimp?

Q-Source

4th November 2002, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I hereby call for more active moderators on JREF, and limitations of franko and franko-like nonsense.. As well as that of serpent and wratith and all other franko sock-puppets. I DO NOT WISH TO BE SUBJECTED TO HIS INSANITY ANY LONGER. CAN SOMEBODY LIMIT HIM OR CORRAL HIM OR DO SOMETHING SO WE CAN HAVE A CIVIL CONVERSATION ON THIS BOARD. CAN WE AMEND THE RULES ONCE AGAIN? HOW ABOUT ANTI-SPAMMING? THIS CRANK REGULARLY POSTS THREE, FOUR and FIVE POSTS IN A ROW, WITH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME VENOMOUS CONTENT. WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO SORT THROUGH THIS CRAP? GET RID OF IT. GET RID OF HIM.

Cheers,

BillHoyt,

I found in the front page of the Forum at least EIGHT threads started with the name of FRANKO on it or with a straight reference to him by the creator of the thread.
You can check:

Logical Creationism
An Introduction to formal logic
Franko's thermodinamics
Franko and Deism.org
Fallacy of Composition
Regarding Franko
Are the laws of physics....?
Enough! I refuse to debate...

And guess who started them? Titanpoint, Fool, Whitefolk, exactly the same people who complains or want him out of the forum.
Don't you think that you should ask them no to start so many threads about this guy?.

I agree with you, I also think that it is too much about the same, but it depends on everybody to diversify this forum with other topics.

I'd ask Franko:
Please do not hijack threads that are not related to your topic (LD). Start new threads if you want to expande or elaborate more about your beliefs. So, only people interested on it will go there.

Q-S

Edited to change "and" for "or"

4th November 2002, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
I'd ask Franko:
Please do not hijack threads that are not related to your topic (LD). Start new threads if you want to expande or elaborate more about your beliefs. So, only people interested on it will go there.

Q-S

Please join us on JREF banter to discuss this situation. Otherwise, we will have helped frankenfruit hi-jack yet another thread.

Cheers,

Kullervo

4th November 2002, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

...Whitefolk, exactly the same people who complains and want him out of the forum.

Careful, there. I have never requested anyone to be banned, nor have I wished them to leave. And I didn't start the Fallacy of Composition thread as an attack on Franko (yeah, I know it sounds implausible, but believe me. I'm just crazy about symbolic logic. It's like a fetish). Sorry, just needed to vent for a minute.

That's FORK, by the way. :)

Franko

4th November 2002, 10:28 AM

Q-Source,

I'd ask Franko:
Please do not hijack threads that are not related to your topic (LD). Start new threads if you want to expande or elaborate more about your beliefs. So, only people interested on it will go there.

Quite reasonable Darling. I will make an effort in the future.

MRC_Hans

4th November 2002, 01:23 PM

I notice that half the threads Franko has "hijacked", are actually about him. Cant really blame him for that IMHO. But it takes at least two to hijack a thread: One to provoke, and one or more to let themselves be provoked. As long as we have been answering why should Franko stop posting?

Hans

Tricky

4th November 2002, 03:21 PM

Well, I've been waiting patiently for Franko to answer these, but that seems unlikely, so I'd like to try my hand. I have never studied formal logic either, but this is the kind of puzzle I like.

Originally posted by whitefork
Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
Some Saudis are terrorists.

Valid or invalid? Show your work. Remember, both premises and the conclusion are true, and the terms in the conclusion appear in the premises, and there is "flow".
Conclusion is invalid. It could be that all Muslim terrorists are of some nationality other than Saudi. The sets do not necessarily overlap.

Originally posted by whitefork
An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is a book.
This has covers, pages and a binding.
Invalid. Although all items with covers, pages and bindings are books, not all books have these traits (books on tape, for example ;))

Originally posted by whitefork
An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is not an object with covers, pages, and a binding.
This is not a book

Invalid (convoluted version of last question). Although all items with covers, pages and bindings are books, there is no statement as to what things without these traits can be. They may or may not also be books.

How'd I do?

Peter Soderqvist

5th November 2002, 01:33 AM

Some Saudis are Muslims, Some Muslims are terrorists, Some Saudis are terrorists.

Soderqvist1: This sequence is truth in a fictional world there all humans are Saudis, but in our real world, it is quite possible that some Saudis are terrorists, for instance Usama Bin laden. But Saudis and terrorists are not a symmetrical relation there, because at least the IRA terrorists are not Saudis, therefore, some terrorists are not Saudis. Aristotelian logic is proper to use when it comes to symmetrical relations, for instance, number 5 belongs to the set of odd numbers, but not at all to the set of even numbers, but most relation in our world are not symmetrical, because Terrorists and Saudis doesn't always belong to the same set, or simply; it is a kind of fuzzy relation between them, and it follows from that, that we need fuzzy logic, when we deal with our real world, because the Aristotelian binary logic cannot deal with fuzzy values, but fuzzy logic can always deal with the Aristotelian binary values, or in simpler terms; two valued logic cannot deal with many values, but many valued logic can deal with two values.

Fuzzy Logic by Bart Kosko and Satoru Isaka
The binary logic of modern computers often falls short when describing the vagueness of the real world. Fuzzy logic offers more graceful alternatives. At the heart of the difference between classical and fuzzy logic is something Aristotle called the law of the excluded middle. In standard set theory, an object either does or does not belong to a set. There is no middle ground: the number five belongs fully to the set of odd numbers and not at all to the set of even numbers. In such bivalent sets, an object cannot belong to both a set and its complement set or to neither of the sets. This principle preserves the structure of logic and avoids the contradiction of an object that both is and is not a thing at the same time. Sets that are fuzzy, or multivalent, break the law of the excluded middle- to some degree. Items belong only partially to a fuzzy set. They may also belong to more than one set. Even to just one individual, the air may feel cool, just right and warm to varying degrees. Whereas the boundaries of standard sets are exact, those of fuzzy sets are curved or taper off, and this curvature creates partial contradictions. The air can be 20 percent cool-and at the same time, 80 percent not cool.

Fuzzy degrees are not the same as probability percentages, a point that has eluded some critics of the field. Probabilities measure whether something will occur or not. Fuzziness measures the degree to which something occurs or some condition exists. The statement "There is a 30 percent chance the weather will be cool" conveys the probability of cool weather. But The morning feels 30 per- cent cool" means that the air feels cool to some extent-and at the same time, just right and warm to varying extents. The only constraint on fuzzy logic is that an object's degrees of membership in complementary groups must sum to unity. If the air seems 20 percent cool, it must also be 80 percent not cool. In this way, fuzzy logic just skirts the bivalent contradiction-that something is 100 percent cool and 100 percent not cool-that would destroy formal logic The law of the excluded middle holds merely as a special case in fuzzy logic, namely when an object belongs 100 percent to one group.

The modern study of fuzzy logic and partial contradictions had its origins early in this century, when Bertrand Russell found the ancient Greek paradox at the core of modern set theory and logic. According to the old riddle, a Cretan asserts that all Cretans lie. So, is he lying? If he lies, then he tells the truth and does not lie. If he does not lie, then he tells the truth and so lies. Both cases lead to a contradiction because the statement is both true and false. Russell found the same paradox in set theory. The set of all sets is a set, and so it is a member of itself. Yet the set of all apples is not a member of itself because its members are apples and not sets. Perceiving the underlying contradiction, Russell then asked, "Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself ?" If it is, it isn't; if it isn't, it is. Faced with such a conundrum, classical logic surrenders.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/fuzzylog.html

Soderqvist1: Btw, our world is not an additive affair, because when we add two poisons together like sodium, and chlorine, we will not end up with some double poisonous mixture, because chemical interaction between these compounds, will give us something not poisonous, namely; salt! ;)

Titanpoint

5th November 2002, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I notice that half the threads Franko has "hijacked", are actually about him.

That's inaccurate. There have been a few (in comparison) which name him specifically. The fact is that his spamming is designed to get all of the them to be about him.

Cant really blame him for that IMHO. But it takes at least two to hijack a thread: One to provoke, and one or more to let themselves be provoked.

Again, is it the behavior of one troll that is the problem or the behavior of naturally-inquisitive people? What is the R&P forum for if not to question things?

As long as we have been answering why should Franko stop posting?

Hans

Unfortunately Hans, Franko has become both cause and effect.

TP

CWL

5th November 2002, 03:45 AM

Well it is a sad thing. I was one of the people who welcomed Franko back after his disappearing act. I was hoping for some open and honest debate. Unfortunately I was disappointed.

Franko, although obviously capable of intellectual thought, is also obviously stuck within his own dogmatic frame. He is unable to accept any alternative standpoints.

He is unique on this forum in that he claims to hold "the Truth". Yet he is unable to prove or explain it.

There is no point in trying to debate anyone holding a sermon.

Sad thing.

MRC_Hans

5th November 2002, 03:58 AM

Unfortunately Hans, Franko has become both cause and effect. I'm not trying to remove blame from Franko, although it might seem so. The way he has acted lately, he's a genuine PITA. What I'm trying to say is that we should take a look in the mirror as well. But maybe we should stop this discussion; the less attention -----

Hans

Peter Soderqvist

5th November 2002, 04:24 AM

TO FRANKO

Franko wrote on page 2, 10-31-2002 04:29 PM: 2 + 2 = 4 demonstrate the validity of that whitehead ... I suspect there is an invisible flaw point it out for us!!!

Soderqvist1: This is an abstract truth, because mathematics deals only with undefined terms, but it is not always truth in the real world, namely, 2-liter water + 2-liter alcohol is not 4-liter, because chemical reaction between these compounds will give us a mixture little less than 4-liter. But if we add 2 apples and 2-apples together, its weights has the approximated additive value, because the weight will rise additively when we add apples together, but its temperature is not an additive affair, because the apples' temperature have not been risen. But the opposite is more truth, when we add nitro to glycerin! :D

Is it truth that; if B is brother to S, is S also brother to B? Not always; because S is sometimes sister to B! ;)

Quotations by Albert Einstein
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. Quoted in J R Newman, The World of Mathematics (New York 1956).
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Einstein.html

Kullervo

5th November 2002, 07:32 AM

(this is not an attack on anyone)

Nice work Trickster, you got it.

Let's see.

This thread is called An Introduction to Formal Logic.
I posed a couple of questions about validity, and you answered them correctly.

For the purposes of getting this back on track, I'll complete the drill.

1. Some Saudis are Muslims
Some Muslims are terrorists
Some Saudis are terrorists.

This is well-formed, but the so-called MIDDLE TERM (Muslims) is not "distributed" among subject and predicate. Venn diagrams (the "Ballentine Ale" symbol - 3 overlapping circles) would show this clearly but I don't know how to put them up here. What is means is that the set which is the intersection of Saudis and Terrorists may be null under the premisses (point being, all the terrorists, may in fact be non-saudis under the premisses).

I disagree that non-Aristotlean logic is required to solve this. It may be able to, but the fallacy has been known since the beginning and is easily dealt with by traditional methods. (Sorry Peter)

LW gave the equivalent Predicate Calculus demonstration elsewhere.

No Syllogism of the SOME, SOME, SOME variety is ever valid.

2. An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is a book.
This has covers, pages and a binding.

Form If A then B.
B
Therefore A

Fallacy of affirming the consequent. Always invalid (Use of truth tables demonstrates that the conclusion can be false while the premisses are true - the definition of implication (if, then)

T implies T = true
T implies F = false
F implies T = true
F implies F = true

Hence, if you can demonstrate a condition where the conclusion is false and the premisses are true, you have an invalid argument. Conversely if assuming the falsity of the conclusion leads to a contradiction, the argument is valid (reductio).

For instance - this is hard to grasp but....

IF Today is November 5
AND Today is November 6

Then I am the emperor of China.

Assume that I am not the emporer of China.
By our assumptions, today is both November 5 and not November 5.
Since the assumption (I am NOT, etc) leads to a contradiction, we must conclude the negation of that assumption.

What this means is that from CONTRADICTORY premisses, anything at all follows.

(one point of the truth function of implication - false premisses implying a false conclusion has a truth value of TRUE)

Opposite side of the coin - any premise at all implies a tautology (statement that is always true). In the truth function of implication, when the conclusion is TRUE, the implication is always true, regardless of the whether the premisses are true or false.

3. An object with covers, pages, and a binding is a book.
This is not an object with covers, pages, and a binding.
This is not a book

If A then B
not A
Therefore not B

Denying the antecedant. Always invalid.

4. All US presidents are native born Americans
Some Catholics are native born Americans
Therefore some Catholic was a US president.

In this case, we also have a Middle term (native born american) that has not been distributed, etc.

But wait! This one is valid:

All native born Kansans are Americans.
Some Catholics are native born Kansans
Therefore some Catholics are Americans

(Middle term (Kansans) distributed)

I will not belabor this by giving all the rules for validity. See this site if you care http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e08a.htm

I have beaten this thing to death by now, but my point is real simple.
If some argument of form X has true premisses and a true conclusion, we must not conclude that all arguments of Form X have a true conclusion when the premisses are true.

The rules of classical syllogism have been restated in the form of predicate logic (that thing where (x) means "for all x" and the backwards-E x means "for at least one x").

I personally prefer the syllogistic approach because it doesn't require the intimidating math-like symbols, and has a nice, intuitive feel to it that is sometimes deceptive.

All examples given here sound a little bit reasonable since they contain true statements, but not one of them is valid. The logical flaws can only be exposed by looking beyond the semantics (meaning) of the terms and seeing the underlying formalism.

Fork go back to work now.

thank you.

Tricky

5th November 2002, 08:04 AM

Thank you, Whitefork. That was a better explanation of formal logic than I have ever heard before. I have a feeling I may want to read a little more on this.

Willy

5th November 2002, 08:33 AM

Peter Soderqvist,

2 + 2 = 4 having an "invisible flaw" was sarcasm. I think you missed the point ... ;)

Kullervo

5th November 2002, 08:37 AM

You must not get out much....
Problem with formal logic is that it's generally given a dry-as-dust presentation, and it doesn't have to be that way. If you can dress up the formalism in normal language, it's more fun. I keep pushing Pospesel's Arguments: Deductive Logic Exercises because it has examples, valid and invalid, from everyday discourse.

In my opinion, if one doesn't have a solid grasp of the bare basics of logic, there's absolutely no point in discussing guys like Cantor and Godel, because one will not understand what they're arguing about. Godel in particular is so susceptible to misinterpretation that as soon as I hear the name brought into a discussion, I assume that the speaker is about to emit a huge cloud of smoke. Formal undecidability is about formalism. The paper after all is called "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems."

That's why I flog the formalism hobbyhorse all the time.

Oh, yeah, I gave a "proof" of 2+2=4 on page 3 of the Logical Deism thread. (do a find on SUCCESSOR).

Victor Danilchenko

5th November 2002, 09:46 AM

Whitefork

i disagree with you on the utility of classical logic. In order for classical logic to be useful for examining the sorts of things you are examining, you have to bring in set theory. You can do so intuitively and thus not appear to complicate things, but it is well-known that "intuitive" set theory is inconsistent.

therefore, i think predicate logic is much better for such things, as many of the implicit set operations in boolean argument are replaced with well-defined quantifiers; and you don't have to use the intimidating symbols -- "FORALL" of "F" work just as well as "∀", and "EXISTS" or "E" work as well as "∃". besides, "forall" and "exists" are pretty comprehensible intuitively as well.

In fact, speaking about the flaws of classical logic... I was going to bring up a point that your earlier examples were unclear -- when you say "An object ... is a book", do you mean that some such objects are books, or all such objects are books? Simply having to frame your arguments in predicate-logic terms automatically does away with such ambiguity and imprecision.

Oh yeah, quick addition for others:

predicate logic is a powerful superset of boolean (AKA classical) logic; in fact, when you hear a mathematician or a logician speak about "logic", they will be usually speaking about predicate logic; it's the logical system to know. preedicate logic comes in multiple orders, and the first-order predicate logic (AKA simple "first-order logic") is just like boolean logic, with addition of two operators, called "quantifiers" -- universal quantifier ("forall" = "F" = ∀) and existential quantifier ("exists" = "E" = ∃). Predicate logic also allows you to specify predicates (additional operators), and the "orders" of predicate logic are distinguished by how and what sort of operators can be defined.

I will use alphabetic symbols, since the proper symbols (∀ and ∃) will not render correctly in all browsers. Also, "~" means logical negation.

Fx C(x)->M(x)
means "For all x, C(x) implies M(x)" -- for example, "all cats are mammals" ("for all x, x being a cat implies x being a mammal"), where "M(x)" means "x is a mammal" and C(x) means "x is a cat".

Ey M(y)
means "There exists x such that M(x) is true" -- for example, "some entities are mammals".

Quantifiers can be stacked:

FxEy y=x+1
means "For all x, exists y such that y=x+1"; this is a statement of infinitude of integers.

see http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_logic for more info.

Kullervo

5th November 2002, 10:02 AM

Victor, I agree with you that if you wish to get really rigorous about formalism you need all that heavy lifting, but the examples I gave were not intended to do more than give a broad-brush view of validity and how to start thinking about it.

The original discussion from which this emerged had to do with the nature of syllogism itself, but went immediatly off in other dircetions, and I don't really want to go back there right now.

So, yeah, if you're going to do it right, get down into the set theoretical stuff, but for (ahem) pedagogic purposes, I've found that ordinary (if flawed) language examples work best at the beginning. Engage the interest first, then if people want to pursue it, hit them with the heavy machinery later.

Ever try teaching an intro to logic course to freshmen at Ohio State? (oh, the pain)

You are of course correct....

An speaking of "Oh the pain" Doctor Smith of "Lost in Space" - Jonathan Harris - died.

"Danger, Will Robinson"....

Victor Danilchenko

5th November 2002, 11:14 AM

whitefork

Victor, I agree with you that if you wish to get really rigorous about formalism you need all that heavy lifting, but the examples I gave were not intended to do more than give a broad-brush view of validity and how to start thinking about it.I can understand that; but don't you agree that even merely being aware of the formalisms' nature helps a lot? Such as in my example of an ambiguous statement -- "an object with leaves and cover is a book" is not precise enough to determine whether you are quantifying existentially or universally. Such ambiguities are often used exactly for the purpose of sneaking in unsound arguments.

So, yeah, if you're going to do it right, get down into the set theoretical stuff, but for (ahem) pedagogic purposes, I've found that ordinary (if flawed) language examples work best at the beginning. Engage the interest first, then if people want to pursue it, hit them with the heavy machinery later.but... but... formal logic is so much fun!

I will always remember...

"Everybody loves my baby,
but my baby loves nobody but me"

implies that

"I am my baby"...

:D

Ever try teaching an intro to logic course to freshmen at Ohio State? (oh, the pain)One of the reasons I bailed out of the PhD program with MS -- teaching unwilling freshmen sitting there merely to fulfill a requirement is not my idea of fun.

Kullervo

5th November 2002, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Such ambiguities are often used exactly for the purpose of sneaking in unsound arguments.

No one that I know would ever stoop so low.

but... but... formal logic is so much fun!

Pays real good, too, don't it?

Mossy

5th November 2002, 03:27 PM

bump

(this one is even educational)

Kullervo

6th November 2002, 06:42 PM

What you have here is the logic normally taught in introductory courses (and used in WFF 'n' Proof) - Logical connectives between "atomic sentences", which are declarative statements with a truth value, TRUE or FALSE.

This type of logic does not deal with the internal structure of statements but the relations between them.

The logical operators are truth functions, AND, OR, IF, IF and only if (IFF), NOT.

AND and OR are pretty intuitive. If you have atomic sentences A and B, the truth value of (A AND B) - conjunction - is true when both A and B are true, and false otherwise.

NOT is the negation of the following term.

With OR, the disjuction is true if either or both of the terms are true.

With IF, the implication is false if the first term is true and the second false. Otherwise the implication is true.

With IFF, the equivalence is true if the two terms have the same truth value.

If you have EXCEL or some other spreadsheet, you can set up a truth table for two variables (statements) and various combinations of operators.

Open a new spread sheet and in cells A1 through A4 and B1 through B4 type
TRUE TRUE
TRUE FALSE
FALSE TRUE
FALSE FALSE

That is all the combinations of truth value of two variables.

Then in C1 type =AND(A1,B1), in D1 =OR(A1,B1), in E1 =IF(A1,B1,TRUE), in F1 =NOT(A1), in G1, =NOT(B1), in H1, =OR(NOT(A1),B1), and in I1, =AND(IF(A1,B1,TRUE),IF(B1,A1,TRUE))

Then copy the cells C1 - H1 to the other three rows.
You should see the full values for all the functions.

(there is no IFF function in excel as far as I know. IFF would be represented as
AND(IF(A1,B1,TRUE),IF(B1,A1,TRUE) read as If A then B and If B then A (Logical equivalence - both must be true or both must be false)

Notice that IF is very weak, that IF(A1,B1,TRUE) is TRUE three out of four times. Read this as IF A then B. The function evaluates the truth of A1, and returns B1 is A1 is TRUE, and TRUE (the third operator) if A1 is false)
Note also that IF A then B is equivalent to OR(NOT(A1,B1), read as NOT-A or B.

Anyway, you can do this with any number of variables, the number of rows being a power of 2 (three variables, eight rows, etc).

Playing around with various combinations of operators shows certain equivalencies

You can show NOT(A and B) = Not-A or Not-B (deMorgan's theorem) by setting up NOT(AND(A1,B1) and OR(NOT(A1),NOT(B1))

Important to this whole process is that all logical equivalences that have the same truth value no matter how complex, can be derived from one another by logical, formal, operations. The system is complete, the truth value of any proposition is decidable, although there are no general rules for forming a proof.

But this tool allows the evaluation of very complex arguments and I might put some up here if anyone shows interest, or maybe if nobody does. Serves you right.

Kullervo

7th November 2002, 06:05 AM

In order to demonstrate validity under this system, you may construct an expression where the conjunction of the premisses is the antecendant of an IF statement and the conclusion is the consequent, as follows

IF (A [and B and C...]) then Conclusion.

Evaluate this expression under the standard rules for implication, and if all values are TRUE, the expression is a tautology. If all values are FALSE, it's a contradiction, and if both TRUE and FALSE appear, it's a contingency. Only tautologies are valid inferences.

In our example, if you construct in cell J1 the expression =IF(AND(E1,A1),B1,TRUE) - equivalent to

IF((IF A then B) and A) then B (known as Modus Ponens - remember that E1 is the expression If A then B)

and copy it to the other 3 rows, you'll have values equal to TRUE. A valid inference.

In K1, set up =IF(AND(E1,B1),A1,TRUE) - equivalent to

IF ((IF A then B) and B) then A - affirming the consequent, you'll have mixed values. The inference is false when A is false and B is true.

In L1 set up =IF(AND(E1,NOT(A1)),NOT(B1),TRUE) - equivalent to

IF ((IF A then B) and NOT-A) then not-B) - denying the antecedant, false when A and B are both false (has the same truth value as affirming the consequent, thus they are in fact the same fallacy, as Tricky pointed out above).

In M1 set up =IF(AND(E1,NOT(B1)),NOT(A1),TRUE) - denying the consequent (Modus Tollens), equivalent to

If A then B is equivalent to If Not-B then Not-A,

you'll have another tautology.

Lastly, in N1 set up =NOT(OR(A1,NOT(A1))) - meaning

(Neither A nor not-A) or (Both A and not-A) - law of the excluded middle -

you'll have a case where all values are false, a contradiction.

I think I've typed all this correctly.

Kullervo

8th November 2002, 06:49 AM

Since the truth value of any well-formed expression in this logic can be determined by the use of truth-tables, the rules of inference aren't strictly necessary. However, the proof of the completeness and consistency of Sentential Logic requires that the system be reduced to a set of axioms and rules. The lack of space in the margins prevents me from offering a full proof of the completeness.....

Anyway, every author seems to offer a slightly different, although complete, set of inference rules, and you can use these to construct proofs in the system.

Kahane (Logic and Philosophy) gives:

Modus Ponens: (If A then B) and A implies B.
Modus Tollens: (If A then B) and Not-B implies Not-A
Disjunctive syllogism: (A or B) and Not-A implies B
Simplification: (A and B) implies A
Conjunction: A, B implies (A and B)
Hypothetical Syllogism: (If A then B) and (If B then C) implies (If A then C)
Addition: A implies (A or B) - a really useful one
Constructive Dilemma: (If A then B) and (If C then D) and (A or C) implies (B or D)

All these can be shown to be tautologies under the definitions of the operators.

One more:

Substitution: Within any expression, a term like A (representing an atomic sentence) may have all of its occurrence replaced by ANY well-formed expression.

The entire machinery of sentential logic may be derived from these three axioms (this from Thomason, Symbolic Logic):

1. A implies (If B then A) - IF(A,IF(B,A,TRUE),TRUE) - meaning if A is assumed, we can validly derive A from anything.

2. (A implies (B implies C)) implies ((If A then B) implies (If A then C)) - Sort of a transitivity of implication.

In excel speak
=IF(IF(IF(A,B,TRUE),IF(B,C,TRUE),TRUE),IF(IF(A,B,T RUE),IF(A,C,TRUE),TRUE),TRUE)
- you need 8 rows to handle the three variables.

3. If Not-A implies Not-B, then B implies A - Modus tollens.

Two rules of inference:

1. Modus Ponens
2. Substitution of expressions for variables.

Don't pay any attention to the above unless you agree with Victor that rigor is fun. There's a good semester of work implied.

Otherwise stick to truth tables - they're adequate for our purposes of showing validity.

Although the truth value of any expression in sentential logic can be evaluated, the process of constructing a proof for the expression using only the rules of inference is by no means trivial - like Mr. Ellis used to say in Calculus "Differentiation is a science, Integration is an art". There are no general rules for forming proofs.

Kullervo

8th November 2002, 07:05 AM

Syllogism deals with categorical propositions. These relate classes of entities (referred to as Subject and Predicate). The classes are assumed to be non-empty. The following comes straight out of the Middle Ages. Syllogism has been replaced by predicate logic, but it can serve as a simple introduction.

There are four kinds of propositions:

All S are P (type A)
No S is P (type E)
Some S is P (type I)
Some S is not P (type O)

Draw a square. On the upper left corner write A. On the upper right, E. On the lower left I, and on the lower right, O.

Draw the diagonals.

The diagonals represent contradictories. (If All S is P, then it is not the case that Some S is not P, and conversely) (If no S is P then it is not the case that some S is P, and conversely). A and O proprositions, and E and I are contradictory.

The relation between A and E is called Contrary. Both cannot be true, but both can be false (If all S are P, then it is not the case that No S is P, but it may be the case the neither is true)

The relation between I and O is called Subcontrary. Both may be true, but both may not be false. (Either some S is P or some S is not P)

The relationship between A and I, and E and O is called Subalternate. We may infer from All S is P that Some S is P, and from No S is P that Some S is not-P (This is the assumption of Existential Import, that the classes are non-empty. If the classes are empty, the inference is not valid.)

A and I are affirmative, E and O are negative.
A and E are universal, I and O are particular.

More to follow.

MRC_Hans

8th November 2002, 07:23 AM

:)Interesting! :)

Hans

Kullervo

8th November 2002, 02:16 PM

The modern way of validating a syllogism is with the use of Venn Diagrams, and there are some good web sites that show how to use them, but in the spirit of the middle ages, I'll present the traditional method.

The traditional syllogism has three statements and three terms (Subject, Middle, and Predicate).

The conclusion is of the form Subject / operator / Predicate
Premise 1 relates the middle and predicate terms,
Premise 2 relates the middle and subject,
the conclusion relates subject and predicate.

There are four Figures:

1. Middle / Predicate
Subject / Middle
Subject / Predicate

2. Predicate / Middle
Subject / Middle
Subject / Predicate

3. Middle / Predicate
Middle / Subject
Subject / Predicate

4. Predicate / Middle
Middle / Subject
Subject / Predicate

We have a concept of "distribution". The members of a class are distributed according to the type of proposition, as follows:

"All" distributes the subject of a proposition.
"None" distributes the subject and predicate.
"Some" distributes neither subject nor predicate.
"Some - not" distributes the predicate (well, not in the sense of the other three, but you just have to accept this)

Distribution, with the exception of type O, thus says something about all members of a class. There are problems with this bald characterization, but you just have to trust me. :)

Now, four rules for validity (assuming non-empty classes):

Middle term distributed at least once
If a term is distributed in the conclusion, it must be distributed in a premise
At least one non-negative (A or I) premise
If the conclusion is negative (E or O) there must be a negative premise

Example 1 - :

All A are B
All C are A
All C are B

Known as Barbara. A is the Middle term, B the predicate and C the subject. All the valid figures have traditional names, the vowels of which correspond to the operators in the statements.

I never showed why this was valid did I?

A, the middle term, is distributed in premise 1. C is distributed in the conclusion, and in premise 2. Affirmative premises and conclusion. Valid.

This is of course an instance of the well-known

All men are mortal
All Greeks are men
All Greeks are mortal (or is that "all greeks are Socrates" - I forget)

a_unique_person

9th November 2002, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette
Bill

I can understand your frustration but this is one thread surely which is actually not being hijacked - it may have gone down a road not intended by the a_u_p but it did so almost immediately, there was no attempt to police the thread by a_u_p so I can only assume the slight detour was ok by him.

So the irony is that it is you and I that appear to be thread jacking

Sou

Like there is something I can do to stop him? I had part of the question answere, which I was happy about, and it is finally getting back to the original topic, so I am starting to read it again. I don't think it was a slight detour, or a detour into an area of equal interest, which is something that often happens in a thread, but which I don't mind.

a_unique_person

9th November 2002, 04:53 AM

Originally posted by whitefork
(this is not an attack on anyone)

This is well-formed, but the so-called MIDDLE TERM (Muslims) is not "distributed" among subject and predicate. Venn diagrams (the "Ballentine Ale" symbol - 3 overlapping circles) would show this clearly but I don't know how to put them up here. What is means is that the set which is the intersection of Saudis and Terrorists may be null under the premisses (point being, all the terrorists, may in fact be non-saudis under the premisses).

You need to be in enhanced mode, then a magic 'attach file' option appears.

Venn diagrams i understand, I did them in year seven maths.

a_unique_person

9th November 2002, 04:57 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Point taken, Sou,

So let us ask A_U_P. DId this conversation get hi-jacked? Did you not want to find out about logic? Were Franko's posts on your point, or did they detract from them?

Has this thread been hi-jacked?

And, sou, look at the fallacy of compositon thread. Franko and hammy openly congratulate themselves on that hi-jacking.

Cheers,

Gee, I gave up on this thread ages ago, and have only just got back into it. Maybe we should start up not just a Franko thread, but a Franko forum. Then it should be pretty easy to keep out of his way.

a_unique_person

9th November 2002, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by whitefork
23 years IBM mainframe systems, assembler, COBOL, REXX, CICS, IDMS.

And you? Visual Basic, I recall.

About that truth table?

CICS, did you pronounce it C.I.C.S, like the traning videos, or KICKS, like we all did. That product caused us more trouble than anything else I have come across. Letting cobol programmers loose on unprotected memory is like giving babies razor blades to play with.

CICS joke.

Name two films stars and a dog.

Benji, Lassie and CICS.

a_unique_person

9th November 2002, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Thank you, Whitefork. That was a better explanation of formal logic than I have ever heard before. I have a feeling I may want to read a little more on this.

Ditto, this answers the second part of my request at the start of this thread.

a_unique_person

9th November 2002, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by whitefork
Ever try teaching an intro to logic course to freshmen at Ohio State? (oh, the pain)

You are of course correct....

An speaking of "Oh the pain" Doctor Smith of "Lost in Space" - Jonathan Harris - died.

"Danger, Will Robinson"....

Talk about hijacking threads, that guy hijacked a whole TV series. They orinally wanted him around for a couple of shows at the start to get it moving, then made himself indispensible. It would never have been half the show it was without him.

Apparently, he was also improvising his part, and after the initial shock, they realised he was on to something.

Kullervo

9th November 2002, 05:41 AM

Nice to see you back. I'm having fun with this, but all the research has brought back the dreaded "final exam" dreams.

CICS - the Canadians and Brits say Kicks, I used to say see-eye-see-ess, but they renamed it Transaction Server a few years back. It's a whole lot more stable than it was back in the 80's, but since my business is performance and stress testing, we find all sorts of opportunities for mayhem. Nobody should be working in that environment unless they have a few years of rigorous programming experience. That said, it's pretty much the only game in town for dealing with huge masses of data and very large transaction volume. (there's room for other opinions, but I'm an IBM mainframe bigot).

Thanks for the attachment tip.

Kullervo

9th November 2002, 06:57 AM

The first line of the poem: "Barbara celarent darii ferio que prioris"

Next in figure 1 is Celarent

No A are B
All C are A
No C are B

Middle (A) is distributed, C and B are distributed in the conclusion and the premisses, negative conclusion with negative premise.

Darii (see how this is going?)

All A are B
Some C is A
Some C is B

Ferio

No A is B
Some C is A
Some C is not B

Middle (A) distributed, predicate (B) distributed in conclusion and premise 1.

Completing the valid syllogisms in figure 1. With four figures, and four operators taken three at a time, we have I believe 256 different possible syllogisms, only a small number of which are valid.

Figure 2: Cesare camestres festino baroco secundae

Now it's a little more interesting, because the names contain mnemonics for transformation rules.

Cesare

No A are B
All C are B
No C are A

The "s" in Cesare is an instruction to convert the first premise (switch the subject and predicate). Conversion is a valid rule of inference for type E and I propositions, but not, of course for A and O (think about it: if no A are B, then no B are A, and if some A is B then some B is A. But if all A are B, then it's not necessary that all B are A)

After conversion, we get

No B are A
All C are B
No C are A

which is the same structure as Celarent.

Camestres

All A are B
No C are B
No C are A

The "m" says "change the order of the premisses", and the "s" says "convert" (since there are two, convert a premise and the conclusion)

After transposing:

No C are B
All A are B
No C are A

After conversion

No B are C
All A are B
No A are C = Celarent

Festino

No A are B
Some C is B
Some C is not A

again, conversion gives

No B are A
Some C is B
Some C is not A = Ferio

(Imagine a room full of wise guys like Hamlet being force-fed this material)

Baroco

All A are B
Some C is not B
Some C is not A

the "c" means reduction per impossibilis: That is, if we deny the conclusion, giving "All C are A", then by premise 1, and the validity of Barbara, we must conclude that "All C are B", contradicting premise 2. The validity of Barbara proves the validity of Baroco.

Notice that the first letter of the name indicates the syllogism of figure 1 to which the other figures reduce.

Figure 3: Tertia darapti disamis datisi felapton bocardo freison habet (Tertia is not a form, but means "third" - "habet" means "has")

Darapti

All A are B
All A are C
Some C are B

"P" means conversion per accidens, switching the subject and predicate, and changing the universal operator to the particular (A to I or E to O). Thus, All A is B becomes Some B is A, and No A is B becomes Some B is not A.

Thus
All A are B
Some C is A
Some C is B = Darii

Disamis

Some A is B
All A are C
Some C is B

Converting premise 1 and the conclusion (s twice) and transposing the premisses (m)

All A are C
Some B is A
Some B is C = Darii

(you wonder why they don't teach this anymore?)

Datisi

All A are B
Some A is C
Some C is B

Convert premise 2 (the s)

All A are B
Some C is A
Some C is B = Darii

Felapton

No A are B
All A are C
Some C is not B

Convert premise 2 per accidens (the p)

No A are B
Some C is A
Some C is not B = Ferio

Bocardo

Some A is not B
All A are C
Some C is not B

Per impossibilis (C) - Deny the conclusion giving All C are B. Then premise 2 and Barbara give All A is B, contradicting premise 1.

Ferison

No A are B
Some A are C
Some C is not B

Convert premise 2

No A are B
Some C are A
Some C is not B = Ferio

Figure 4: Quarta insuper addit Bramantip camenes dimaris fesapo fresison.

Bramantip

All A are B
All B are C
Some C are A

Tranpose premises (m) and (here's a bit of cheating) convert the conclusion of Barbara per accidens to get Some C are A

All B are C
All A are B
Some C are A = Barbara with converted conclusion

Camenes

All A are B
No B are C
No C are A

Transpose premises, convert conclusion

No B are C
All A are B
No A are C = Celarent

(just a few more, I'm on a roll here)

Dimaris

Some A is B
All B are C
Some C is A

Transpose premises, convert conclusion

All B are C
Some A is B
Some A is C = Darii

Fesapon

No A are B
All B are C
Some C are not A

convert premise 1, convert premise 2 per accidens

No B are A
Some C is B
Some C is not A = Ferio

(last one)

Fresison - I like this because it sounds dirty

No A are B
Some B are C
Some C are not A

convert both premises

No B are A
Some C are B
Some C are not A = Ferio

And now you know everything there is to know about the classical syllogism. (right).

If an argument does not fit one of these forms, then it requires "other methods" to demonstrate its validity (wink-wink)

Here endeth the lesson for the day.

I hope to continue by showing how some of these argument forms translate into Predicate logic, which is more in the Victor/LW line.

a_unique_person

11th November 2002, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
The first line of the poem: "Barbara celarent darii ferio que prioris"

Are these all just stating the permutations and combinations of that venn diagram you were referring to?

Kullervo

12th November 2002, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by a_unique_person

Are these all just stating the permutations and combinations of that venn diagram you were referring to?

What we have are four basic syllogisms of the first figure (Barbara, etc). That's the first line of the poem. (I will see about putting up the corresponding Venn diagrams). The other three lines are the mnemonic rules for transforming the syllogisms of the other three figures into those of figure one.

They're rules of inference, if you will.

Kullervo

12th November 2002, 12:41 PM

Barbara: All B are C, All A are B, therefore all A are C. The shaded areas have no members.

Kullervo

12th November 2002, 12:54 PM

Baroco:

All A are B
Some C is not B
Some C is not A

The X is in a position within C that is not within B. Since all A is void except where it overlaps B, that X must outside of A's domain.

From these two example you should be able to guess at the others. The reduction of syllogisms to figure 1 does not imply that their Venn diagram representations are the same.

Kullervo

12th November 2002, 01:22 PM

All syllogisms of the first figure:

a_unique_person

13th November 2002, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by whitefork
Barbara: All B are C, All A are B, therefore all A are C. The shaded areas have no members.

Thanks, so what is the mathematical representation of this?

Kullervo

13th November 2002, 04:39 PM

I'd suggest a rigorous treatment in terms of set theory, I guess. (which I am not in a good position to provide - it's been a while). Given a universe consisting of three sets A, B and C, you have the intersection of not-A and B null, not-B and C null, so the only members of A must remain in the intersection of A, B and C, so all the members of A are also members of C.

Kullervo

16th November 2002, 04:16 PM

the first time I heard the word logic was from my father who is a highly contentious man and likes to argue like nobody's business. Of course I have very little in common with him. He said once apropos of nothing "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares". I don't remember how old I was at the time.

this sort of wisdom stays with you for a long time. Let us try to apply it.

In sentential logic we have propositions, which are either true or false. We can determine the truth value of a complex proposition by analysis. Predicate logic allows us to represent complex categorical propositions symbolically (lot of syllables there).

For instance, All A are B.

the universe consists of a lot of "x" and other funny letters. They are in lower case. Properties are represented by upper case letters like A, B, etc.

(x)(IF Ax Then Bx) - would be read as "If anything is A, then it is B" - the symbol - (x) - meaning "for every x". This does not mean that an x satisfying the condition "Ax" actually exists.

"All the Samoan Cy Young winners are bald" is a true statement.

But take this: "Some Samoan Cy Young winner is bald." This statement is symbolized as

(Ex)(Sx AND Bx) -- the "E" in "Ex" is supposed to be reversed -- .

that is, "there is at least one entity that is Samoan and a Cy Young winner AND that person is bald." A false statement.

So you have two operators, (x) and (Ex), the universal and existential quantifiers.

Barbara

All A are B
All C are A
All C are B

becomes

(x)(IF Ax Then Bx)
(x)(If Cx Then Ax)
(x)(If Cx Then Bx) the If - then being generally represented by a horseshoe symbol with open end to the left.

Celarent

No A are B
All C are A
No C are B

(x)(IF Ax then NOT-Bx) - if x is A then x is not B.
(x)(IF Cx then Ax)
(x)(IF Cx then NOT-Bx)

Darii

All A are B
Some C are A
Some C are B

(x)(IF Ax then Bx)
(Ex)(Cx AND Ax)
(Ex)(Cx AND Bx)

Ferio

No A are B
Some C are A
Some C are not B

(x)(IF Ax then NOT-Bx)
(Ex)(Cx AND Ax)
(Ex)(Cx AND NOT-Bx)

There are rules of inference. If you have a universal quantifier like (x) you can infer that any variable such as "a" has the same attributes.

So from

(IF Ax Then Bx)

we can infer IF Ay then By - if y has property A then y has property B.

from (IF Cx then Ax)

we can infer IF Cy then Ay

Since Ay, By, and Cy are propositions, we can construct a truth table for

(IF A then B) AND (IF C THEN A) implies (IF C THEN B)

and infer

IF Cy THEN By

Or, you can build a conditional proof by

1. Cy - assumption
2. IF Cy then Ay - assumption
3. Ay - 1,2,Modus Ponens
4. IF Ay then By - assumption
5. By - 3,4,Modus Ponens
6. IF Cy then By - 1,5,Conditional Proof

and by a rule known as Universal Instantiation we have

(x)(IF Cx THEN Bx)

More coming

Peter Soderqvist

18th November 2002, 08:39 AM

MASS = ENERGY
Mass is made up of energy, photons are made up of energy, photons are made up of mass.

Photons can only travel at light speed, because they have no mass, so I am wondering about, if Aristotelian logic can deal with asymmetrical relations? :D

Kullervo

18th November 2002, 10:34 AM

If I understand your question, the answer is "no". An assymetrical relation (something like X is the father of Y) cannot be represented within the traditional syllogism.

X is the father of Y
Y is the father of Z
X is the grandfather of Z

requires other methods for evaluation.

Even symmetrical relations ("X is married to Y" implies "Y is married to X") don't work out.

Same for non-symmetrical relations (X loves Y)

(the above paraphrasing Kahane, page 160-161)

For such relations, predicate logic is required.

(I don't want to talk about mass/energy. The scientists here are much better qualified)

Peter Soderqvist

19th November 2002, 03:42 AM

All humans are mortals, all philosophers are humans, all philosopher are mortals!
This syllogism works because all members in the set have same properties, called group properties, all these members have thus these properties; humans, mortals, philosophers.

But the members in the set of energy are fuzzy, because they have different properties, hence some is made up of mass, some is made up of photons, a car simply doesn't belong to the set of light. Fuzziness cannot be set in a syllogistic proposition. For instance, all mass is made up of energy, photons are energy, but are not made up of mass, therefore; nonlinear phenomena doesn't work in a syllogistic way! :)

Kullervo

19th November 2002, 05:47 AM

That being the reason why the syllogism is not an adequate system of reasoning for much of what's been found in the last 2000 years.

I'd even go so far as to say that logic alone will get you nowhere, but it will help to identify formally invalid reasoning. It's a tool of limited usefulness, when pushed beyond its limits, "results may be unpredictable".

Dorman

19th November 2002, 06:02 AM

MASS = ENERGY
Mass is made up of energy, photons are made up of energy, photons are made up of mass.

Invalid syllogism. :(
(On top of the fact that mass=energy is only a loose statement, and in the context under which you are trying to use it here, it is definitely an incorrect statement.)

Photons can only travel at light speed, because they have no mass, so I am wondering about, if Aristotelian logic can deal with asymmetrical relations?

The `apparant' contradiction here is not one of Aristotelian logic, but of incorrect premises and invalid syllogism, I think.

This is not to say that Aristotelian logic has no limitations, just that the above is not an example of that.

all mass is made up of energy, photons are energy, but are not made up of mass, therefore; nonlinear phenomena doesn't work in a syllogistic way!

I am not sure what you mean by `nonlinear phenomena' here. As I expressed above, I do not think this is a failure of the `syllogistic way' at all.

Peter Soderqvist

20th November 2002, 01:32 AM

TO DORMAN

1 I define linear as commutative!
A is married with B, B is always married with A
A philosopher is a mortal human.

2 I define non-symmetrical as sometimes commutative!
A is brother to B, B is sometimes brother to A, and B is sometimes sister to A.
A philosopher is a mortal human, but a mortal human is sometimes a philosopher!

3 I define asymmetrical as never commutative!
A is father to B; B is never father to A.
Aristotelian logic has no concepts of asymmetrical relations!

My borderline between 2, and 3 is fuzzy, hence 2 and 3 is included in my usage of the word nonlinear, but my discrimination between linear and nonlinear is sharp! Binary syllogism is proper to use in connection with linear phenomena, but have no merit outside its realm. A parallel can be drawn to Euclidian geometry, and its improperness to compute non-Euclidian space, hence non-Euclidian Geometry is computable there! Binary logic can only compute members, which only belongs to the same set, but fuzzy logic can compute members, which belongs both to the same set, or many different sets, because binary logic is a special case of fuzzy logic!

Fuzzy logic, and/or nonlinear logic!
The binary logic of modern computers often falls short when describing the vagueness of the real world. Fuzzy logic offers more graceful alternatives.
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/fuzzylog.html

To make fools of our selves in public is the best way to remove our misunderstandings! :D

20th November 2002, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by Peter Soderqvist
[1 I define linear as commutative!
A is married with B, B is always married with A
A philosopher is a mortal human.

I have often trouble reading your posts because you use terms in very nonstandard ways, like in this case.

Normally, linear is used to describe a thing where there are no exponents. For example, x = 2y is a linear equatiation but x^2 = 1 is not, since x is raised to the power of two. Similarily, f(x) = 4x+5 is a linear function.

The term commutative is usually used on binary operators. For example, for natural numbers + is a commutative operator since x + y = y + x, but - is not since x-y != y-x in general. A binary operator is a function that takes two arguments and produces a value out of them.

In your first example sentence you are describing a binary relation over the set of persons. A binary relation is a collection of pairs that are somehow, well, related to each other. In your example the pairs consist of two persons, A and B , that are married to each other. Relations and functions are very similar, but not equivalent. An unary function (like the f(x) above) is a binary relation of a specific form and binary functions
are similarily special cases of ternary relations (relations between three elements). This is why the term commutative is strange here.

In case of binary relations the correct term is symmetric. A relation is symmetric if A and B are in relation always when B and A are.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with your second example, since in my eyes it states that the set of philosophers is a subset of the set of mortal humans and I can't see how linearity, commutativity, or symmetry applies here.

2 I define non-symmetrical as sometimes commutative!
A is brother to B, B is sometimes brother to A, and B is sometimes sister to A.
A philosopher is a mortal human, but a mortal human is sometimes a philosopher!

While technically not wrong (with the exception of using "commutative"), this is a little dangerous definition since nonsymmetric could be confused with antisymmetric. I would prefer writing "not symmetric" as two separate words to minimize the danger of misconceptions.

3 I define asymmetrical as never commutative!
A is father to B; B is never father to A.
Aristotelian logic has no concepts of asymmetrical relations!

To tell the truth, I've never understood why anybody still wants to use Aristotelian logic. It was created over 2300 years ago and it has clear limitations. Why not use modern formal logic and its notations, either propositional, predicate, or some altogether different one depending on the problem to model? Sure, there are examples where even predicate logic doesn't have enough expressive power, but all the examples in your post are nicely handled using it.

Binary logic can only compute members, which only belongs to the same set, but fuzzy logic can compute members, which belongs both to the same set, or many different sets, because binary logic is a special case of fuzzy logic!

Fuzzy logic is an important tool in the domains where it can be used (controllers, game AI, etc.), but it too has its limitations. If you create a large model using it, it is very easy to end up with a system that nobody really knows what it is doing. Then there are also cases where the fuzzy interpretation of "or" as "max" and "and" as "min" is not desirable (e.g., when working with probabilities).

Peter Soderqvist

20th November 2002, 03:51 AM

TO LW

You wrote I have no idea what you are trying to say with your second example, since in my eyes it states that the set of philosophers is a subset of the set of mortal humans and I can't see how linearity, commutativity, or symmetry applies here.

I wrote on page 4, 11-19-2002 10:42 AM: All humans are mortals, all philosophers are humans, all philosophers are mortals! This syllogism works because all members in the set have same properties, called group properties, all these members have thus these properties; humans, mortals, philosophers.

Soderqvist1: They are commutative, because they belong to the same set, because all humans are mortals, all humans are philosophers there, but outside of the set; all humans are philosophers are false to facts! Because, if we fond some mortal humans who are not a philosopher he doesn't belong to the set either, because members in a subset or other sets are not philosophers, all humans are simply not philosophers!

Kullervo

20th November 2002, 10:36 AM

What!?

Please rephrase all that somehow. It sounds like you're saying that if we have only humans and philosophers, that they're the same?

You really lost me.

In the universe of rectangles, there are squares and non-squares.

Peter Soderqvist

21st November 2002, 12:48 AM

TO WHITEFORK

White fork wrote 11-20-2002 05:36 PM: Please rephrase all that somehow. It sounds like you're saying that if we have only humans and philosophers, that they're the same? You really lost me.

Soderqvist1: Syllogism can only compute members, which only belong to one set, because syllogism is not a fuzzy phenomenon! It is called the Aristotelian law of Identity; A is A. The law of contradiction; something cannot be both A and not A; and the law of the excluded middle, something must be either A or not A. Any set can have many characteristics, but any characteristic it has, is part of its identity.

You wrote: In the universe of rectangles, there are squares and non-squares.

Soderqvist1: In the set of rectangles, their members are squares, and non-squares,
A chessboard is a rectangle; a chessboard is either a square or a non-square.
A poker card is a rectangle; a poker card is either a square or a non-square.

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html

Soderqvist1: I define symmetrical relation as one to one correspondence.
An apple cut from top to down, into two halves are symmetrical, and something similar can be said about our mirror picture when we look into the mirror. Therefore A is always brother to B, and B is sometimes brother to A, and B is sometimes sister to A, this is a non-symmetrical relation, because all A's are made up of males, but all B's are made up of both males and females. In special cases, let's say, Adam is brother to Bill, and Bill is brother to Adam is a symmetrical relation, Adam is brother to Barbara, and Barbara is a sister to Adam is a asymmetrical relation, therefore, this phenomenon-as-a-whole is a non-symmetrical relation! :)

Kullervo

21st November 2002, 05:38 AM

We're dealing with two different species of "to be" here (apologies to Bill Clinton, but it depends on what your definition of "is" is).

The "IS" in A is A (Aristotlean identity, "I am the king of Spain") is not the same as the "is" in "I am one of the crowned heads of Europe"). The first is not only symmetric, it is reflexive. The second assigns a member to a set, and is generally not either reflexive or symmetrical, unless the set contains only one member (and then it's an identity relationship). I suspect we may attempting to say the same thing, however.

Peter Soderqvist

21st November 2002, 06:48 AM

Soderqvist1: It appears to me that the Heads of Europe is the set or identity in general, and the Spaniard king is one particular identity, and identity means sameness in all respects, and the identity is invalid when one of the characteristics is left out! But the question is; shall we define by intension, or extension?
Do you know the difference between definition by intension, and extension?

I am short of time here but I will be back tomorrow! :)

Kullervo

21st November 2002, 06:52 AM

I know the difference. I think I may need to learn Swedish, though. We seem to have a language barrier going here. Sorry for my denseness.

Peter Soderqvist

21st November 2002, 06:59 AM

The issue is boring, let's move on to something else!

I will leave now!

Peter Soderqvist

22nd November 2002, 03:44 AM

TO WHITEFORK

White fork wrote on page4, 11-21-2002 12:38 PM: We're dealing with two different species of "to be" here (apologies to Bill Clinton, but it depends on what your definition of "is" is).

The "IS" in A is A (Aristotelian identity, "I am the king of Spain") is not the same as the "is" in "I am one of the crowned heads of Europe"). The first is not only symmetric, it is reflexive. The second assigns a member to a set, and is generally not either reflexive or symmetrical, unless the set contains only one member (and then it's an identity relationship). I suspect we may attempting to say the same thing, however.

Soderqvist1: "I am the king of Spain" is the "is of identity" and the "I am one of the crowned heads of Europe" is a relational term, the "is of predication" assigning something to a class, in this case the class of crowned heads of Europe, there the set, or class has at least one member, namely; the king of Spain!

Syllogism cannot deal with Bertrand Russell's paradox; All Cretans are liars, I am a Cretan, therefore I am a liar? I have tell you the truth that; I am a Cretan, thus I doesn't belong to the set of liars, at least one Cretan isn't a liar, namely me! ;)

The modern study of fuzzy logic and partial contradictions had its origins early in this century, when Bertrand Russell found the ancient Greek paradox at the core of modern set theory and logic. According to the old riddle, a Cretan asserts that all Cretans lie. So, is he lying? If he lies, then he tells the truth and does not lie. If he does not lie, then he tells the truth and so lies. Both cases lead to a contradiction because the statement is both true and false.

Russell found the same paradox in set theory. The set of all sets is a set, and so it is a member of itself. Yet the set of all apples is not a member of itself because its members are apples and not sets. Perceiving the underlying contradiction, Russell then asked, "Is the set of all sets that are not members of themselves a member of itself ?" If it is, it isn't; if it isn't, it is.

Faced with such a conundrum, classical logic surrenders. But fuzzy logic says that the answer is half true and half false, a 50-50 divide. Fifty percent of the Cretan's statements are true, and 50 percent are false. The Cretan lies 50 percent of the time and does not lie the other half. When membership is less than total, a bivalent system might simplify the problem by rounding it down to zero or up to 100 percent. Yet 50 percent does not round up or down.

In the 1920s, independent of Russell, the Polish logician Jan Lukasiewicz worked out the principles of multivalued logic, in which statements can take on fractional truth values between the ones and zeros of binary logic. In a 1937 article in Philosophy of Science, quantum philosopher Max Black applied multivalued logic to lists, or sets of objects, and in so doing drew the first fuzzy set curves. Following Russell's lead, Black called the sets "vague."
http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/fuzzylog.html

I hope the language barrier is removed? :)

I will be back at Monday!

Kullervo

22nd November 2002, 05:44 AM

I understand. Thank you.

(The comment about learning Swedish was not meant to be sarcastic, in any case. It's getting near the time for me to study an new language and I don't know any of the Scandinavian ones. Maybe for 2003).

Peter Soderqvist

22nd November 2002, 06:26 AM

I hope you will select Swedish in the year 2003, a first lesson, or introduction here; we don't say – I am right, instead of that we say; I have right converted into Swedish; Jag har rätt, and I am wrong, corresponds to; I have wrong converted into Swedish; Jag har fel! :)

Peter Soderqvist

25th November 2002, 12:14 AM

Logical existence is freedom from self-contradiction, a circle is a circumference with points in equal distance from its center; therefore a square circle has no logical existence!

Kullervo

25th November 2002, 06:19 AM

Do you take a Platonic stand on the existence of mathematical entities? That topic is truly a fruitful one for discussion.

Peter Soderqvist

26th November 2002, 02:00 AM

My stance is non-Aristotelian! :)

TO WHITE FORK

Soderqvist1: I assume you mean that platonic mental objects are eternal verities, and are independent from our minds! I consider this Platonic stance as meaningless, because we have no means to verify its independency! But my stance is that; words are not the objects we are talking about, and words are hopelessly over defined by intension, and hopelessly under defined by extension, because a map cannot map all its territory! For instance, a circle is a static concept, which will never be found in our dynamic world of physicochemical processes, hence all what can be found there is a ring, with some color, thickness. The word "circle" is over defined by intension, because externally, its points are not at equal distance from its center, and the perfect concept in our minds, are under defined by extension, because it lacks the external characteristics (color, thickness)! Therefore Aristotelian A = A is not externally truth!

Structural differential (a picture) can show you what cannot be said!
http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~rsauzier/Korzybski.html

Soderqvist1: Emphasis in bold type by me!

Richard Dawkins Charles Simonyi Professor In the Public Understanding of Science Oxford University, Oxford, England From his book The Selfish Gene, Chapter 2 the Replicators page 18: Should we then call the original replicator molecules "living"? Who cares? I might say to you " Darwin was the greatest man who has ever lived", and you might say No, Newton was, but I hope we would not prolong the argument! The point is that no conclusion of substance would be affected whichever way our argument was resolved. The facts of the lives and achievement of Newton, and Darwin remain totally unchanged whether we label them great or not.

Similarly, the story of the replicator molecules probably happened something like the way I am telling it, regardless of whether we choose to call them "living". Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use, and that the mere presence in the dictionary of a word like "living" does not mean, it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world. Whether we call the early replicators living or not, they were the ancestors of life; they were our founding fathers

Living or non-living?
Were these early self-replicating molecules living or non-living? Dawkins: that's an idle question. 'No conclusion of substance would be affected by whichever way our argument was resolved.'
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/www/psychology/cog/psy1100/dawkins.htm#sect5

Alfred Korzybski: Whatever we may say something is, obviously is not the 'something' on the silent levels. Indeed, as Wittgenstein wrote, 'What can be shown, cannot be said.' In my experience I found that it is practically impossible to convey the differentiation of silent (unspeakable) levels from the verbal without having the reader or the hearer pinch with one hand the finger of the other hand. He would then realize organismally that the first-order psycho-logical direct experiences are not verbal. The simplicity of this statement is misleading, unless we become aware of its implications, as in our living reactions most of us identify in value the two entirely different levels, with often disastrous consequences. Note the sadness of the beautiful passage of Eddington on page. He seems to be unhappy that the silent levels can never be the verbal levels. Is this not an example of unjustified 'maximum expectation'?

I firmly believe that the consciousness of the differences between these levels of abstractions; i.e., the silent and the verbal levels is the key and perhaps the first step for the solution of human problems. This belief is based on my own observations, and studies of the endless observations of other investigators. There is a tremendous difference between 'thinking' in verbal terms, and 'contemplating', inwardly silent, on non-verbal levels, and then searching for the proper structure of language to fit the supposedly discovered structure of the silent processes that modern science tries to find.

If we 'think' verbally, we act as biased observers and project onto the silent levels the structure of the language we use, and so remain in our rut of old orientations, making keen, unbiased, observations and creative work well-nigh impossible. In contrast, when we 'think' without words, or in pictures (which involve structure and therefore relations), we may discover new aspects and relations on silent levels, and so may produce important theoretical results in the general search for a similarity of structure between the two levels, silent and verbal. Practically all important advances are made that way.
http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/ak2.htm

Albert Einstein: These thoughts did not come in any verbal formulation. I rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterward. Quoted in H Eves Mathematical Circles Adieu (Boston 1977).
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Einstein.html

CWL

26th November 2002, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by whitefork
That being the reason why the syllogism is not an adequate system of reasoning for much of what's been found in the last 2000 years.

I'd even go so far as to say that logic alone will get you nowhere, but it will help to identify formally invalid reasoning. It's a tool of limited usefulness, when pushed beyond its limits, "results may be unpredictable".

Oh my... does this mean that the existence of God and an afterlife cannot be proven by means of logic alone?!? :eek:

Peter Soderqvist

26th November 2002, 03:47 AM

I think he mean that Aristotelian syllogism has made us too black or white orientated!
Not because syllogism is invalid, but because of it's over emphasis on either it is, or not? For instance, Daniel Dennett in his book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, has rejected Aristotle's essentialism, because objects has no inherent "essence" because we cannot say the exact moment in time when a cell is split in two, but it is an easy task after a while to say; now they are two there, and something similar can be said about speciation, we cannot point out the exact borderline between the old one, and the new species, because a species have no essence, and for the same reason variations in a species, or speciation, is not an clear-cut question, the borderline there is simply fuzzy. But the creationists believe in Aristotle's essence, because Aristotle's philosophy is part of the Christian doctrine, and because of that, has rejected the Darwinian evolution! :)

Kullervo

26th November 2002, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by CWL

Oh my... does this mean that the existence of God and an afterlife cannot be proven by means of logic alone?!? :eek:

I fear that you are correct. I also fear that the non-existence of God and an afterlife cannot be proven by logic alone. Kant has much to say about this in the Critique of Pure Reason, the section on the logical antinomies.

I do not believe that logic alone can prove the existence of anything except more logical truth. Logic can demonstrate that something is logically impossible, but that may not be of much help. Formalism is limited that way.

Kullervo

27th November 2002, 07:55 AM

This is just a quick overview, cribbed from Nagel and Newman.

Given an axiomatic system sufficiently powerful to support arithmetic (such as that described in Principia Mathematica by Russell and Whitehead):

1. Godel shows how to construct a meta-mathematical statement G (a formula in arithmetic) that says "Formula G is not demonstrable."

2. Then he shows that G is demonstrable if and only if not-G is demonstrable. (since G say "G is not demonstrable")
If a formula and its negation are both demonstrable, then the axioms of the system are inconsistent.

3. Then he proves that G is true, but not formally demonstrable. (It asserts that every integer has a certain property and that can be shown to be true of every integer we examine, but cannot be shown to be true of all integers)

4. Since G is true and formally undecidable, the axioms of arithmetic are incomplete.

5. Then, he shows how to construct a formula A that represents the statement "Arithmetic is consistent", and proves that "A implies G" is formally demonstrable.
Then he shows that A itself is not formally demonstrable.

This means that there is a true statement in the formal system that cannot be demonstrated by the axioms of the formal system.

If G is added to the axiom set, then the same process can generate another expression that is also true but undecidable.

It says nothing at all about the nature of matter, time, space, and the universe as a whole.

It is, however, one of the shining achievements of twentieth century mathematics.

http://www.faragher.freeserve.co.uk/godeldef2.htm

Peter Soderqvist

28th November 2002, 12:37 AM

TO WHITE FORK

You wrote on page 5, 11-27-2002 02:55 PM: This means that there is a true statement in the formal system that cannot be demonstrated by the axioms of the formal system.

Soderqvist1: can a Turing machine (algorithm) give us this answer?

You wrote: It says nothing at all about the nature of matter, time, space, and the universe as a whole.

Soderqvist1: Our universe is a closed system according to the second law of thermodynamics, if not all inferences can be formalized in this universal system, is its consistency proof immaterial, and thus outside the universe?

Godel's incompleteness theorem as quoted from Godel's biography
Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine. A consistency proof for [any] system ... can be carried out only by means of modes of inference that are not formalized in the system ... itself. Godel's results were a landmark in 20th-century mathematics, showing that mathematics is not a finished object, as had been believed. It also implies that a computer can never be programmed to answer all mathematical questions.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Godel.html

Is this universal consistency proof a non-local phenomenon? :)
http://www.twm.co.nz/goswam1.htm

CWL

28th November 2002, 02:31 AM

Originally posted by whitefork

I fear that you are correct. I also fear that the non-existence of God and an afterlife cannot be proven by logic alone. Kant has much to say about this in the Critique of Pure Reason, the section on the logical antinomies.

I do not believe that logic alone can prove the existence of anything except more logical truth. Logic can demonstrate that something is logically impossible, but that may not be of much help. Formalism is limited that way.

We are in complete agreement. To anyone practicing my profession (law) what you are saying is painfully obvious.

Kullervo

29th November 2002, 05:26 AM

Peter: One consequence of Godel's proof is that a Turing machine cannot tell us wether these formally undecidable propositions are true or false.

If physics can be formalized, it will contain formally undecidable propositions.

Beautiful, is it not?

You can create more ever more powerful rules of inference to that will allow you to infer the truth or falsehood of currently undecidable propositions, but the validity of those rules will be as uncertain as the propositions you're trying to evaluate.

You can create new mathematical formalisms (Newton and the calculus, for instance), but the problem of undecidability will always be with you.

Upchurch

7th January 2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by Franko
Where fn = a function of

1) Atoms obey the Laws of Physics. (Atoms = fnTLOP)
2) You are made of atoms. (YOU = fnAtoms)
3) You OBEY the Laws of Physics. (YOU = fnTLOP[fnAtoms])

THE MATH VERSION! A personal favorite of mine! If nobody minds, I'll repost my response.

Note:
A = "Atoms"
T = "TLOP"
Y = "You"

Originally posted by Franko
A = fnT
Y = fnA
Y = fnA = fnT
this should really be (and pardon the slight change in notation):

A = f(T)
Y = f(A)
Y = f(A) = f(T)

since f(A) = f(T), then

A = T
A = f(A)

Generalizing,

f(x) = x

So,

Y = f(A) = f(T) = T

And we shown, given Franko's assumptions, that

Y = T

or in English, you are the laws of physics and, as such, are god.

If we are to believe Franko's assumptions and definitions, we have proof of athiesm (welll, really, humanism), because that is what the mathematics seems to indicate.
If, on the other hand, we reject his assumptions and definitions, this particular proof has no basis and indicates nothing either way.
Personally, I tend to reject the premises because I don't believe the assumption that,

Y = f(A) = f(T)

As whitefork pointed out to me in a PM, the proper formation should be

Y = f(A) = f(f(T)) = g(T)

where

g(x) = f(f(x))

which suggests that T relates to Y differently than it relates to A.

What a wonderful stroll down memory lane...

Upchurch

edited to add:
The end conclusion, which I seem to have not saved is that either

Y = T

or

g(x) = f(f(x))

Meaning that either everything that is made of atoms is god or the laws of physics work differently at the atomic level than they do at the macroscopic level. Franko never explained which fell into his belief system....