The Statement Game

MeAgain,

I replied to your PM; please read it, aye? Just for the record, there's an apology in there.

I'm not sure how you could use English to show that "5=4" is not talking about quantities. Erm, you can try to, if you want. =P

I do understand the substitution cyphers. It does make a good practical joke in movies, but ... not sure it helps the argument along.

It is true that you can interpret the definition of possible different ways, but ... looking at it critically (I guess as we are, except we took the long-winded way), we should be able to take that definition and look at it and say "hey wait a second, this isn't right ..."

Yeah, wouldn't it have made a lot more sense for a God to have just built silicon data transfer jacks into our necks or something? Haha.

Well, maybe just re-read it when you're sober. If we were both drunk, I think we'd be able to agree that arguing when you're buzzed is not exactly fun.

I suppose, except for the part where we weren't talking about physical objects, rather about quantities and definitions. =P

 

Cool, I'm gonna do something different. Just a substitution cypher for you:

8.9.11.1.18.21. .26.5.18.15. Thats your name written in the simplest substitution cypher. 1=A,2=B,3=C.....25=Y,26=Z

A way to obscure this cypher further would be to set the numbers = to alternate numbers, of which the simplest method would be to subtract 1 from every value. 1=0,2=1,3=2,4=3,5=4...26=25

7.8.10.0.17.20. .25.4.17.14. Which is your name written in our modified substitution cypher. Of course, it would be better to pick random numbers and some way to mix the order of the letters in order to make something that is hard to decrypt.

Yah. That's how I feel about it. When someone makes up a game where you have to disprove statements, then makes a statement with the word possible which is impossible to disprove (due to the definition of possible), I had to point out the possibilities.

Call me old fashioned, but I sorta like the flesh computer interface system. Although I would jump at the chance to jack in to cyberspace (neuromancer, I'd be a cowboy, famous like Dixie Flatline).

Still didn't understand it when I looked at it today. Dunno what the issue is. The wording seems wierd to me, so I can't really discern what you mean.

Ohh. lol.

 

Ok, this whole argument refers to the first definition of possible.

Here is an example of the word possible being used per the second definition:

Some person "Do you have ice cream in your fridge"
Me "It's possible (that there is ice cream in my fridge)." (even though I know there is no ice cream in my fridge)
My statement cannot be shown to be false because I never specified anything. I used the word possible to respond in a vague and non falsifiable manner. Nobody can say "You lied, you knew there was no ice cream in the fridge!" because I will just say that "I said it is possible which means it may or may not be true that ice cream is in the fridge." I did not lie, I obscured the truth by using the word possible in a legitimate way.

That's definitely interesting. A logic system in which 5 could equal 4 in some situations. There has to be a way to set up a system such as that. Probably require more dimensions than 3 or 4.

I don't know.
I still feel that if I say "It is either true or false that 5 = 4" the statement is true, because one of the conditions is fulfilled (false). If you had something undefined in the statement "It is either true or false that OJAgnoon#@!40jdn2". it really doesn't mean anything to me.

You would say that something that is known to be true or known to be false cannot be called possible. However, the definition of possible does not disallow certainties from being asserted as possible.

As long as the X in the statement "It is possible that X" is something that can be interpreted as true or false, the statement is correct (and true) due to the definition of the word: being something that may or may not be true (in other words 'being something that is true or false').

I'm sorry if this is getting repetitive, I definitely understand what you are saying about the word, and as I said before, your interpretation of the uses of the word possible correspond to the one definition.

I want coffee. Brain is half muffled from the beer last night (I went out again after dinner).

 

I see how things can be encrypted into numbers, although ... that still doesn't show to me how, in English, something like "5=4" can make sense and not be referring to quantities. Even if you encrypt it into other numbers, those numbers no longer refer to quantities, they'd be symbols representing encoded characters (as I'm sure you're aware). But, even if you do encode it, if you want people to be able to decode it, you have to give them instructions for how to decode it. Similarly, if "5=4" could mean something else, you'd have to give the person instructions on how to interpret it, if it is to be interpreted differently.

On a side note, have you ever heard of a Huffman tree?

Right.

Agreed. Not sure if I'd call it "obscuring the truth," but that works. =P

Aye, it would be interesting. I doubt that it's possible, but ... maybe in the future, we can give it a shot. You'd have to rework the entire system, probably.

The biggest problem I have with the logic that, if you say "it is possible that X," and that statement is true all the time ... even when, you could also demonstrate that "it is impossible that X", such as the case in "5=4".

It just seems entirely contradictory to be able to say "it is possible that X" and "it is impossible that X" at the same time. The only reason you could do that is if you are using a flawed definition. I think, in some cases, it may be appropriate to use an OR gate as substitution (i.e. instead of "possible," one might use, "may or may not be true"), but that you can't always do that, because possible needs to be applied differently when talking about logical concepts rather than physical ones.

Anyway, I think this argument is pretty much resolved. =)

(Maybe I should close it? Thanks to everyone who participated in "The Statement Game," including Meagain, Kharakov, StonerBill, BlackGuard the thirteenth, Common Sense, Professor Jumbo, and if your name isn't here and it should be, send me a PM and I'll edit this.)

 

New Statement:
Positive thoguhts conquere negative thoughts
Thus its better for yourself and the world to love everyone than hate anyone

 

And then I told you that geometry isn't arithmatic and that with non-Euclidean geometry you can do all sorts of things. But the only reason such geometries can be constructed is that Euclid's Fifth Postulate is not necessarily true. 5 = 5 is necessarily true. Now, let's talk about exactly what is being argued here. You brought up an example about geometry. As it turns out, your example is irrelevant, but the point is you brought it up anyway. Since you did that, that suggested to me that you are making a logical point, not a linguistic point, not a point about the use of words. What that suggested to me is that you believe that if, in some weird universe, I had 4 apples sitting in front of me, I would somehow at the same time have 5 apples in front of me because, in that same universe, 5 = 4. Or, perhaps you are arguing that if I saw 5 apples in front of me in that universe, there would, in fact, be 4 apples there. Or, perhaps you are making a completely linguistic argument, that the arbitrary symbol "5" could, hypothetically, represent the number 4. There are three choices: A, B, and C. Which are you arguing?

Yes, I agree that in cryptography the arbitrary symbol "4" could represent the number 5. But that's still different from 5 being equal to 4. It's the quotation marks that make it different. When you write 5 = 4, you're not doing cryptography, you're doing math. You're not talking about symbols, you're talking about abstract concepts. When you say "5" = 4, then you're talking about symbols, and then you can do cryptography all you want. You don't even have to write the quotation marks as long as you know that you're talking about symbols and not logic, as every good cryptography would be sure to know. When you're doing logic, both sides of the equal sign must be equivalent; that's what an equal sign means. In cryptography, this can be but is not necessarily the case. Just because "5" = 4 in a code doesn't mean that "4" = 5, although it could. These are some of the differences between logic and linguistics, which you keep trying to blur.

Also, you're example is so remote from every-day experience, that it does not persuade me in the least. Why can't you just give me an example from ordinary life in which 5 = 4.

I'm glad that you're learning your informal logic but there are no red herrings or strawmen or anything like that in my argument. If you can find one, point it out. So now I'm going to question your reasoning. How is it that you can claim to be making a purely linguistic argument that involves premises about geometry, which is clearly logical and not linguistic?

I didn't use them incorrectly and you've never even tried to show me that I did. If I did, show me.

Yes, but I've seen them through telescopes. I've never partied with a unicorn either, and I know they don't exist.

I'm not changing my position at all. I still do not believe that other dimensions exist and would still be happy to argue against the idea that they do. I may not be able to prove it beyond all doubt but I can still come up with a pretty damn good argument, certainly better than any argument that such dimensions do exist. There's no contradiction, no sidestepping, and I'm very sure that I'm right.

I haven't ruled that out. But from my point of view it seems like you've been gradually changing your argument from a logical one to a linguistic one because it's easier to defend. I hope I'm way off but the only reason I'm even entertaining this notion is because of your references to geometry and physics. Why would you give examples from hard science when trying to make a linguistic point?

Strawmen don't count if you make them yourself. If you can word something so poorly that three people (me, Hikiru, Megain, and probably more) don't know what you're talking about, then that's really not my problem. Anyway...

Now that statement is not objectionable in the least. It's so vague that it can't be. "Play within the realm of linguistic interpretation" is particularly troublesome.

When you put it that way, it looks like a logical argument. And as a logical argument, it clearly fails (if you mean that "it is possible that x" is always true; you don't say either way, so I'm assuming). It seems to me that the first and second quotes say two very different things. How am I supposed to tell the difference between X the symbol, and X the thing?

It's not my strawman. You're the one who started all the stuff about theoretical physics and geometry, remember? So now let's be perfectly clear, do you believe that it is in any way possible for the quantity 5 to equal the quantity 4?

Now I'm confused about something else. What does falsifiability have to do with linguistics? I mean, I guess you could, in principle, use the falsifiability to do linguistics. But why would you want to? What would it prove?

 

I'd give them a chart with a series of symbols equaling other symbols.

Once again, I am being a stickler for definitions of words, check out this definition for equal sign:a sign = indicating mathematical or logical equivalence (courtesy m-w.com). In a substitution cypher chart you indicate (for example) that the symbol 0 is the logical equivalent of the letter A in the encoded message by saying 0=A. 145134= B 01451= C 4511=D

Unless it is a puzzle for the person to figure out- than you give them just enough so that you do not spoil the joy of figuring out the puzzle.

Just looked it up. Totally awesome.

lol, half truth. Literally.

I know. I love loopholes in language (allows us to play logic jokes on eachother), but at the same time you have to watch out for them in an argument. I use the word possible whenever I don't want to be trapped by a statement I make, which is a really cheesy method of avoiding a direct logical attack.

It is wierd. When we say "X is impossible" we are making a definite statement- we take a logical stand that X can never be true or actual. When we say "X is possible" we are not making a stand, we are just saying X might or might not be true/actual- it's like our argument is a bank of fog that cannot be touched by the sword of logic because we didn't specify whether X is true/actual or false/not actual.

Agreed.

Agreed. Common Sense is back in it though, so I will respond to him in some manner.

 

Define "better." Morally consistant? Beneficial to survival? Both? Something else?

 

D. I originally used 5=4 as an example of a statement that was always false. Later I realised that '5 = 4' could be a true statement in some situations. When people said that the statement '5 = 4' was always false, I felt obligated to mention the various ways in which it could be interpreted as true, although it had nothing to do with my main argument.

Sorry about that. My whole argument was about the word possible giving to much leeway to a statement so that it could not be refuted. I try not to blur stuff, but if I don't understand something correctly, the only things I will convey to you about that something are going to be blurry.

I really don't know. Maybe I haven't experienced enough ordinary life for 5 to equal 4 yet.

Ok. I thought everything that was being argued about besides the main argument was a strawman.

God, you know what, I totally generated the circle strawman thing cuz I wanted to talk about a situation in which a circle is a square. That was entirely my bad. The example of the square circle actually lead away from my main argument because a square circle can be a true object.

I think the whole part-whole relationship thing got me. I really don't see how it applied to what I was stating (around page 5-6). Throwing in the words semi-highly abstract (which is what I assume you meant by quasi metaphysical) just confused me more. I was talking about abstract concepts, yes. I wasn't talking of a part whole relationship (that I am aware of now, or was when you first mentioned it).

I partied with blue unicorns. Around '89-'90. "They do exist" M&M candy.

New thread? I'd love to see such an argument. Of course, it has to be solid, an argument that can be directly attacked. If it is not, but merely provides lots of appeals to authority, ad populums, and other fallacies, don't bother, cuz it will be thrown to the wolves. It's not really a good argument if it doesn't take a definite stand and has logical support (scientific evidence such as quantuum entanglement (spooky action at a distance) indicates the existence of other spacetime dimensions to me, but I don't feel like arguing the point when you already offered to argue against their existence). After you, politely bows. (start a new thread please)

Awesome. Don't forget quantuum entanglement. Don't forget black holes and the singularity within them that could very well have it's own space dimensions (although it is (theoretically) a point within our universe). Don't forget the distortion of spacetime do to matter either. Make it interesting with lots of possible entertaining strawmen.

My bad. lol. I don't think I even knew what I was talking about for a while. I mean, the strawmen that arose were interesting to me, but I really wanted to get back to the main argument. I do tend to go off on tangents sometimes. OR often. Sometimes other people follow the tangents, and I remember what I was talking about originally, and start talking about it again, and the people are like "we were talking about the tangent" and I'm like "yeah, but it really only arose out of this main argument, and I realised that something about the tangent was very cool too, so decided to argue both at once, but then while I was arguing 2 tangents and the main argument at the same time, it confused everyone else because they thought the tangents were the main argument, although truthfully, if they were all argued seperately they would each make very fine arguments in their own way.

I stand by my tangents: that 5=4 can be interpreted in more than one way (some of which are true), and that a square circle can exist as a theoretical construct in higher dimensional mathematics, but really just want to drop them because I am bored with them for now.

lol, you're awesome.

Well, I talked about it elsewhere in the thread. I think in the last few messages it got wrapped up.

No. Unless you want it to (not me, I wouldn't want that to happen).

Falsifiability has something to do with linguistics when a statement is not falsifiable due to it's possible (linguistic, hahaha) interpretations.

It is possible (It is either true or false/ It may or may not be true) that pigs grew wings and flew yesterday. This statement is not falsifiable- it doesn't take a definite stance that can be attacked. You can set up numerous strawmen- but the person who said this statement can always say (no matter what happened) that they only meant 'it may or may not be true that pigs flew'. You cannot attack their statement, except by stating it is non-falsifiable. They are not taking the stance that pigs flew, and they are not taking the stance that pigs did not fly, they have one foot on both sides of the fence but are completely uncommited to the proposition "pigs flew".

 

Negative thoughts negate negative thoughts, but if we thought positively towards negative thoughts we would be supporting the negative thoughts.
(-)(-)=(+)
(+)(+)=(+)
and
(+)(-)=(-)
(-)(+)=(-)

 

Agreed.
Statement:
With no ego no world runs smoothly

 

Hmm. ego: the self especially as contrasted with another self or the world (courtesty m-w.com)

Do you mean something like: Worlds cannot run smoothly without egos?

If particles that made up the world did not have their own 'identities', wouldn't the world collapse into a singularity?

I am implying that on a certain level particles must have some sort of identity (whether or not it is a conscious identity) that is contrasted to all other particles, although there is the uberparticle God that controls and shapes all of the subsidiary particles- thus quantuum entanglement/ spooky action at a distance.

 

A universe with no ego is a universe without life; a universe that is not percieved by any being that has a viewpoint separate from the viewpoint of the actuality of the universe.

With no ego, a world runs smoothly, but nobody can appreciate how smoothly it runs because nobody can percieve it (otherwise it would be a universe with an ego in it).

 

Yeah I actually meant "the world runs Smoothly with no ego, but yalds got it.

 

What are yalds?

 

yalds are elements of the universe

 

Statement:
All we are is a peice of the universe, the name and ego we have created for ourselves is just an illusion

 

Feel free to make statements this is a game, not my game

 

our name is us and we are we thats just the turth.But yes we and our "egos"(Our mental reality) are just a pice of a grander universe with other names each having its own ego.Thats the universe:The Ulimate reality.Illusion dose not exsit because all is real in the fact that it just is reality.

 

I agree. However, it is a convincing illusion.

But you are doing such a good job! =P