Submitted by Vico1730 t3_z0s4dw in philosophy
iiioiia t1_ix9e01j wrote
Reply to comment by chromeVidrio in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
> 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.
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.
iiioiia t1_ix9xokv wrote
Did you note this part: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality""?
chromeVidrio t1_ix9xu8d wrote
Yeah, but I am not even sure what you mean by that lol.
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.
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”.
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?
chromeVidrio t1_ixa5e9h wrote
It literally says:
> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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
iiioiia t1_ixaitlr wrote
Who decides on the categorization algorithm implementation? Can there be only one?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
iiioiia t1_ixcz0xg wrote
What if there is no data feed for portions of the race? What value would one store for those timestamps?
chromeVidrio t1_ixcz31h wrote
RL or not RL
iiioiia t1_ixczzw1 wrote
Aka: unknown or null.
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.
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
chromeVidrio t1_ixawr1s wrote
cheers, it’s been a fun debate
/u/iiioiia has not convinced me but respect to him nonetheless
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.
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).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments