Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chromeVidrio t1_ix8y6u1 wrote

Logically, how does that make sense?

Something is either true or false, no?

For example:

> I have a dog.

That has to be true or false. There is no third option. Now, knowing the right answer, that’s up in the air, but not that it has to be either true or false. We know it’s one of those.

Enlighten me as to why I am wrong.

3

iiioiia t1_ix94hhx wrote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

A third option is unknown, though it is often not reachable by humans.

2

chromeVidrio t1_ix95o08 wrote

Interesting. I’m trying to think of a situation where something is neither true nor false, and I am completely drawing a blank.

Are we sure this even exists in nature?

What is not true and not false?

3

iiioiia t1_ix98oo1 wrote

It depends on whether you are talking about base reality itself or our perception/beliefs about base reality....it can be quite tricky to pull the two apart.

Take "There is a God(s)" - how can humans assign a conclusive value to that proposition in an epistemically flawless manner?

2

chromeVidrio t1_ix995gq wrote

As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right? No, we cannot conclude which is right because it is unobservable, presumably, but we know it has to be either true or false. That is, God either exists or it does not.

If not, what’s the third option?

5

iiioiia t1_ix9e01j wrote

> As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right?

That is a metaphysical question, the answer to which we also do not have access (in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality").

> but we know it has to be either true or false

Can you prove that?

> If not, what’s the third option?

No idea...that I am unable to present a third option does not cause reality itself to not support a third option.

3

chromeVidrio t1_ix9w3px wrote

I’ve been thinking about this, and I think what you’ve essentially done is changed the definition of true and false. That is, equivocation. Under your definition, true ≠ not false and false ≠ not true, leaving room for a third option, which isn’t possible if true = not false and false = not true.

3

iiioiia t1_ix9xokv wrote

Did you note this part: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality""?

2

chromeVidrio t1_ix9xu8d wrote

Yeah, but I am not even sure what you mean by that lol.

2

iiioiia t1_ixa11ka wrote

Ah ok....well, I haven't changed the definition of true and false....set theory as implemented in databases is probably the easiest way to understand it:

https://modern-sql.com/concept/three-valued-logic

> Comparisons to null > > The SQL null value basically means “could be anything”. It is therefore impossible to tell whether a comparison to null is true or false. That’s where the third logical value, unknown, comes in. Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”. > > The result of each of the following comparisons is therefore unknown > > NULL = 1
> NULL <> 1
> NULL > 1
> NULL = NULL
> > Nothing equals null. Not even null equals null because each null could be different.

2

chromeVidrio t1_ixa2n78 wrote

Yeah, I’m not a programmer, but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false. That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.

Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.

> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.

3

iiioiia t1_ixa42vr wrote

> but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false

The text explicitly states the opposite of that.

"NULL = 1" --> Unknown

> That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.

Incorrect.

> Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.

Question: have you ever written any tests in school?

1

chromeVidrio t1_ixa5e9h wrote

It literally says:

> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.

3

iiioiia t1_ixa5tzs wrote

If the state of nullness can be rectified (replaced with an actual value), then it would be possible to resolve the proposition to a non-unknown value - but not until then.

2

chromeVidrio t1_ixa65iw wrote

Right, then we would know whether it is true or false—not that it must be among those two options, that it is true or it is false. We already know the latter. Only which of the two options is unknown.

3

iiioiia t1_ixa77k4 wrote

> We already know the latter.

Actually you don't - that's what I meant by: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality"".

If the data in question is streaming values of a variable that toggles between True/False (or, something else entirely, like the name of a person), the value varies over time, and, sometimes there is no value even at base level reality. For example, take something like: Race Leader - if two people are tied for first place, there is no singular leader - in this case, reality itself is NULL.

2

chromeVidrio t1_ixag01g wrote

So, no, even in your example we know the answer must be true or false.

I will use RL for Race Leader.

From context, we know you’re defining RL as

> singular leader.

A will be Person 1.

B will be Person 2.

> If A = singular leader, then A = RL

> If B = singular leader, then B = RL

> If A ≠ singular leader, then A ≠ RL

> If B ≠ singular leader, then B ≠ RL

A is either the singular leader or he is not, right?

Same goes for B.

(We know neither are singular leader because they are tied, but put that aside for now. Let’s pretend we don’t know they’re tied.)

I’ll use SL for singular leader now.

In other words:

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL

And we know our definition of RL that RL is SL.

> RL = SL

If

> RL = SL

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL

Then

> A = RL or not RL

> B = RL or not RL

We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.

And for fun, we can go ahead solve the problem here, since you told us they are tied and that tied ≠ SL.

A ≠ SL

B ≠ SL

RL = SL

A ≠ RL

B ≠ RL

Therefore,

A = RL is False

A ≠ RL is True

B = RL is False

B ≠ RL is True

RL = not A or B

(aka RL = not A and not B)

3

iiioiia t1_ixahvdf wrote

> We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.

What if they're tied?

0

chromeVidrio t1_ixai1ha wrote

Keep reading. I solve for that scenario.

Both are then false, i.e., not RL.

A ≠ RL

B ≠ RL

RL = not A or B

2

iiioiia t1_ixaitlr wrote

Who decides on the categorization algorithm implementation? Can there be only one?

0

chromeVidrio t1_ixaj8jw wrote

I am not sure what you mean by that.

The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.

It could change the result but it will never change:

A = RL or not RL

B = RL or not RL

Give me another definition. I’ll solve it.

2

iiioiia t1_ixak6ks wrote

> The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.

Ok then:

RL = both A and B.

You are thus incorrect.

0

chromeVidrio t1_ixakh2g wrote

RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL

All you’ve done is change the definition of RL.

RL is no longer “singular leader.”

It now allows for ties.

RL = SL or tied racers

Therefore, RL = both A and B

A is still RL or not RL

B is still RL or not RL

It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”

3

iiioiia t1_ixaml6p wrote

> RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL

Nope, regardless of whether RL == SL, due to the difference in my implementation.

> It now allows for ties.

For now....I might change it again!

> It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”

I don't think "just" is appropriate here, as the truth value is a function of the implementation. Barring a singular, conclusive/deterministic definition, it is subjective.

Regardless: ternary (and other kinds) of logic exists, it does not require your agreement or approval.

1

chromeVidrio t1_ixao733 wrote

Lol, again, it does not matter what is the definition of RL. It doesn’t even matter if RL changes.

A is always RL or not RL

B is always RL or not RL

To prove me wrong you need to show me a scenario where

A = not RL and RL

B = not RL and RL

It’s an impossibility. You cannot be not Race Leader and be Race Leader at the same time. You cannot be and not be at the same time. Ternary logic might exist but it’s wrong to the extent it might suggest that things need not always be true or false.

3

iiioiia t1_ixcz0xg wrote

What if there is no data feed for portions of the race? What value would one store for those timestamps?

2

chromeVidrio t1_ixaqwse wrote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

Here is the Wikipedia on this issue. Like you, others have challenged the law, but I don’t buy it for a second. I think Aristotle hit the nail on the head.

3

BugsRucker t1_ixaweko wrote

this has been fascinating to read both of you, just thought i'd throw that in instead of being a silent observer

5

chromeVidrio t1_ixawr1s wrote

cheers, it’s been a fun debate

/u/iiioiia has not convinced me but respect to him nonetheless

4

iiioiia t1_ixcz9t2 wrote

It was fun, I think we were kinda arguing two related but distinct points simultaneously though.....Reddit sucks for serious arguments.

2

iiioiia t1_ixczn8y wrote

I don't think this necessarily applies though as definitions (implementations) can do an end run around it, like a tie having zero race leader or two race leaders....there is the objective physical state of reality, and the subjective perceptual/narrative state, but humans tend to conflate the two (the subjective state often appears to be objective).

2

Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixadz4l wrote

Quantum physics has to deal with this problem because of the issue of observation of basic particles. To observe an event you have to use a constant stream of colliding particles. To see a cup of tea on the table, the photons have to hit the cup and reflect into your eye. But what if the cup was so small or the photon is so big, that when they collide the position and velocity of the cup has already changed way before the photon comes back to the retina? This is a fundamental problem in quantum interactions as the particles used to observe are at a comparable size to the particles observed. In other words, it's hard to say if there is a way to firmly determine positions of small particles (at least for me, as I'm not a physicist), so that is your prime candidate in nature for the third option.

2

chromeVidrio t1_ixajxt4 wrote

Nah, this doesn’t create a third option. It’s actually a good example of my point.

The particle is here or it is not.

We don’t know where the particle is located, but it is here or not here.

P = Particle

X = Location

P = X or Not X

1

Bleusilences t1_ixbuwuz wrote

The value of n/0?

edit: corrected a small mistake

2

chromeVidrio t1_ixcb5nu wrote

Is that a true or false question? Are you asking if it is true or false the value exists? What is n, a number? If so, no the value does not exist. The answer is false. You can’t divide by zero. Next question.

1

iiioiia t1_ixd60md wrote

> The answer is false.

Excel disagrees.

1

Bleusilences t1_ixdxcy9 wrote

It's neither, you can't divide by zero because the quotient is unknown.

The value exist but cannot be determined.

"The value does not exist" is more an hand waive to make the issue easier to understand.

Which is making my point that truth can be more granular than anything else because what you said is not incorrect but incomplete.

You can read about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_by_zero

1

chromeVidrio t1_ixdxhwh wrote

No it’s false. There is no such thing as something that is neither true nor false.

1

captainsalmonpants t1_ix9eew5 wrote

What does it mean to have a dog? Are you referring to the legal construct? Does it mean the dog obeys you? (Always?) If in this moment I'm temporarily caring for my friend's dog, do I have a dog? Do my friends have the dog or not? Can we both have the same dog simultaneously? Can having a dog mean different things to people of various cultures, or even to members of the same culture?

2

chromeVidrio t1_ix9eo5e wrote

Define “have” however you want. The answer still has to be either true or false. Your definition might change the answer, however.

2

captainsalmonpants t1_ix9qi7v wrote

But what do we call an unclear statement that produces contradictory results?

2

chromeVidrio t1_ix9rcp2 wrote

It doesn’t matter. We still know the right answer can only be one or the other, true or false, albeit we may not know which.

1

captainsalmonpants t1_ix9syz6 wrote

And the state of not knowing which is called "indeterminate" which is the result of a vague predicate. How does your logical system handle indeterminacy?

1

chromeVidrio t1_ix9tuve wrote

It just means whether it’s true or false is not known, but we still know it has to be one or the other.

2

captainsalmonpants t1_ix9yf94 wrote

False, WE do not know that.

Your dog statement cannot be evaluated without context. We can infer that context from a stated purpose, knowledge, or assumptions about one or both, but absent that it's just a set of meaningless symbols or sounds.

0

chromeVidrio t1_ix9z31r wrote

Lol, no. We do know that. I either have a dog or I do not have a dog. What other answer could there possibly be?

Think about it:

(1) I have a dog;

(2) I do not have a dog; or

(3) ???.

What possibly could be your third option?

2

Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixac2u3 wrote

I would argue that your third option looks like a set of statements that could be interpreted as "having a dog" and further sets of interpretations for those statements... and further sets for those and so on ad infinitum. In the end you'd have sets within sets containing the whole universe to which you are now asked the question "is the universe true or not?" To which I would say, does a creature inside of the whole of existence have the capacity to define if such things are even applicable at that level of magnitude? What is the difference between a true and a false universe that would make the term relevant?

1

chromeVidrio t1_ixav17d wrote

Your ideas about 3 et seq. are likely mere definitions that will allow us to determine the answer to whether I have a dog.

That is, of 1 and 2, one must be true and one must be false. That is, I cannot have a dog and not have a dog at the same time. It’s an impossibility.

If 3 is a cat, then 2 is true. If 3 is anything other than a dog, then 2 is true, but if 3 is a dog then 1 is true.

You see what I’m saying?

And as to whether the universe is true or not, I don’t know the answer, but I know it’s either true or false, and it is cannot be both true and false.

2

Honest-SiberianTiger t1_ixb5gnv wrote

The problem of strict binary truth lies in the language and the principles of decision making. What I think you are saying is that at a fundamental level we reach a statement which is either true or false. And I agree. But our language and our brains do not operate in that paradigm. We operate in a paradigm of weighted probabilities that allow us to decide on how to solve real scenarios. Traditionally, computers work in strict binary logic, but they can not approach human operating capacity without emulating human neural networks. Human brains operate on connection strength, not binary predictions. They can infinitely approach truth, but can never achieve it. The third option between truth and falsehood is uncertainty. But you can not reject truth as the article suggests, because you will break the mechanisms that lead to computational function. In other words, uncertainty is a function of those two options. If we take a statement outside the context of possible thought or observable reality, there is no saying if you do have a dog or not. Because truth changes based on a subset of observable reality. What if our reality exists in a multiverse and/or consists of multiverses itself? Now you have to infinitely define which particular you has or has not a dog, which in essence makes the statement "I have a dog" infinitely verbose to exclude all other possibilities. As such, yeah, technically it can only be true or false, but determining the absolute truth is impossible.

A state of absolute truth is theoretical. Uncertainty is practical. If you remove uncertainty from thought, it will imply vast philosophical consequences such as absence of freedom of thought. Option 3 being between 1 and 2 excludes truth and untruth. You can either have 1, 2 or 3... in theory. In practice we only operate in option 3. If 0 is false and if 1 is true, uncertainty is between 0 and 1, it is quite literally a real number ;)

1

BugsRucker t1_ixavkpl wrote

>Something is either true or false, no?

Genuine question:

What is the difference between saying what I quoted and saying:

'Something either is or not is?'

What does the addition of the true and false qualifiers add to the context?

2

chromeVidrio t1_ixavytc wrote

Nothing, assuming I understand you and “is” = true and “not is” = false.

That is a dog.

That is not a dog.

Only one of those statements can be correct about any one thing at a particular time.

Something cannot be both a dog and not a dog at the same time.

2

BugsRucker t1_ixb1d1d wrote

Interesting. I think we agree but something isn't right. My own use of language, internal and external, use the phrase "X is true" quite often, which suddenly feels redundant. Why does it not feel complete to just say "X is"? I guess I'm looking for insight into what the addition of 'true' and 'false' signify. Is it just common language usage or is it more than that?

1

Bleusilences t1_ixbunf5 wrote

I could argue that, in fact, there is no such thing as dog and you own a wolf.

A domesticated wolf yes, but a wolf none the less.

Truth is a multifaceted thing and not just a flat yes/no.

You can say, in this case, that I am a bit pedantic and it is also true.

I have a better question for you: What is the square root of -4?

1

chromeVidrio t1_ixcawfp wrote

Then I would not have a dog. The statement would be false.

1