For a strict understanding of the truth.Quote:
A better way to state that might be, for what reason is this important to you? [Not judging, just wondering.]
Let me try repeating this as I have noticed that the wording in the first post may be hard to understand.
Ok, here is the idea.
assumption: x = y
the idea: you do not know that x = z, so then there is the possibility.
conclusion: so then you do not know that x = y or z.
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by elucid
Pretty sure that's a nontheorem of the propositional calculus.
Basically because you "dont know" that x = z, you then can not say that x = y or z.Quote:
What?
But that fails because you started off assuming that x = y. So by definition of 'or' (assuming that you mean x = y or x = z), you can in fact make that claim regardless of the value of z.
Yes, the value of z is not important here. What is important here is the fact that you "dont know" that x = z. let me use another example, the same one I used in the first post.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
A color is yellow, you do not know of a reason that it can not be yellow, because you do not know, then you can say that you do not know if the color is yellow or not.
Like I said, I dont use this philosophy in my everyday life, it is just in a very strict sense, for practical purposes of course you can go ahead and say that it is the color yellow.
No, let's stick with this example. How is the fact that we don't know that x=z relevant to the statement that x = y or x = z when we've assumed that x = y. What does not knowing that x = z have to do with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by elucid
Well it is relevant because if you dont know that x = z, then there is the possibility, if you do know that x =/= z then there is not the possibility, so because you do not know, that makes it a possibility and thus you can not say that x = y or z. Because there is the possibility of both of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Lets take this slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by elucid
We start off, as you did by assuming that x = y.
We then ask: Is it true that x = y or x = z?
Let's think about how we would answer that question.
We would first ask ourselves if x = y. If x = y, then it's true that x = y or x = z because x = y. If x =/= y or we can't answer it, only then would we ask if x = z. If either x = y or x = y then, well, it's true that x = y or x = z.
But we know that x = y.
So, referring to our thought process above, we see that it is true that x = y or x = z regardless of the value of z
This is a fact. What don't you understand about it?
Like I said, because it is considering this in the sense of absolute strictness, it may be hard to understand, but it really is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Ok, lets not assume that x = y, lets say that x = y. Now it is fact, now the reasoning goes that because x = y, then it does not equal z.
Then we question, how do you know that x =/= z, the answer: because x = y, which is an assumption that since one thing is this, it cannot be that. Since it is an assumption, then it means that you do not know that x =/= z. Thus we go again that we do not know if x = y or z.
It is not a fact, the whole point of this philosophy is to crumble the notion of something being a fact. Even the former sentence is an assumption. Even this former sentence is an assumption and so on ad infinitum.Quote:
This is a fact. What don't you understand about it?
I very much understand where your coming from and I am just taking it to a very extreme level is all. Basically the end result happens to be so strict that we cant speak a single word and so this is expressed in complete silence.
What do you mean x = y or z? I've been writing it as x = y or x = z. Is this correct? if not, please define what you mean.
Yeah, its correct as I understand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
The whole foundation for this argument is that since you do not know that a reason exists that would counter your proposition, then you can not state your proposition to be true. Again, very strictly considered.
Ok. Good.
Now is it true that a or b is defined to be true if either a is true or b is true?
EDIT:
Here's the "truth table" that I'm proposing for or:
Does that look good to you?Code:or | True | False |
-----------------------------|
True | True | True |
-----------------------------|
False| True | False |
-----------------------------|
Could you be a little more elaborative?
Uh, why does the reasoning go this way exactly? Why can't x = y = z? Your assertion that x =/= z seems to have popped out of thin air without any logical entailment.Quote:
Originally Posted by elucid
Okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by elucid
True or False = True
True or True = True
False or True = True
False or False = False
Put another way,
a or b is true if a is true and b is false
a or b is true if a is true and b is true
a or b is true if a is false and b is true
a or b is false if a is false and b is false
Does that look like a good definition of "or" to you?
It is based on the reason that it would be contradictory for one thing to be two things which I was trying to refute.Quote:
Uh, why does the reasoning go this way exactly? Why can't x = y = z? Your assertion that x =/= z seems to have popped out of thin air without any logical entailment.
And PhilosopherStoned, I get what your talking about now.
This is directed towards Dub, the main point of this is that because you do not know of an existence of a reason that would counter your proposition, then you can not state your proposition to be true.