register

  • Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 

Ask William

Off Topic » Ask William (Posts 91 to 120 of 274)

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 10
  12. >
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Very good Bregt applause

    I wonder if William will agree?
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Bregt wrote
    I'm pulling a William.

    Since the first proposition was first, and the second followed upon the first, it is clear that the first proposition is true, since that proposition couldn't be ruled out by an other proposition. The second proposition clearly followed, with the first proposition knowing it would, so it already stated that the second proposition would be false, even though in itself it doesn't say so.


    You may be relying too heavily on semantics there. The fact that Proposition A was 'first' and is concordantly named 'A' bears no significance to either proposition being either true or false; they are simply two propositions with an equal footing which directly relate to each other and serve to contradict each other. One cannot exist without the other. (If there is no 'second' proposition, the 'first' proposition must be false since there IS no other proposition.)

    But, of course, what does William think?
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    :sigh:
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Careful, or I'll start an "Ask Demetris" thread. biggrin
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Steven wrote
    Careful, or I'll start an "Ask Demetris" thread. biggrin


    A gentle Q & A thread, I think it should be called 'Tea with D' wink
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    I think i'll ban myself.
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    • CommentAuthorTimmer
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    'It's D Time'?
    On Friday I ate a lot of dust and appeared orange near the end of the day ~ Bregt
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    D tox, rather.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  9. William wrote
    Thomas Glorieux wrote
    I have a moral dilemma

    Bregt says the site will vaporize once he'll fall out of the top 10 posters
    I'm eleventh, and I can't stop posting

    what must I do William? shame

    Fight my pride and remain eleventh?
    or go for it and see what happens?

    What must I do William? shame


    Hmmm... This one's a toughie. I say you should go for it and see what happens. And immediately duck for cover, afterwards. biggrin


    okay, I'll take your advice (I'm doing this the moment we're speaking tongue ) and I'll let you know what happens

    I'm scared shame
    waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Bregt wrote
    I'm pulling a William.

    Since the first proposition was first, and the second followed upon the first, it is clear that the first proposition is true, since that proposition couldn't be ruled out by an other proposition. The second proposition clearly followed, with the first proposition knowing it would, so it already stated that the second proposition would be false, even though in itself it doesn't say so.


    How can you also possess such wisdom? angry
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    I'm still awaiting an answer William.
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Steven wrote
    I'm still awaiting an answer William.


    The answer is the same as that which Bregt gave...
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    But I've already described how that's not a suitable answer.
    O what now, William? biggrin
    •  
      CommentAuthorWilliam
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Steven wrote
    But I've already described how that's not a suitable answer.
    O what now, William? biggrin


    Oh... dizzy shame Well, in that case... suicide
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Steven wrote
    Bregt wrote
    I'm pulling a William.

    Since the first proposition was first, and the second followed upon the first, it is clear that the first proposition is true, since that proposition couldn't be ruled out by an other proposition. The second proposition clearly followed, with the first proposition knowing it would, so it already stated that the second proposition would be false, even though in itself it doesn't say so.


    You may be relying too heavily on semantics there. The fact that Proposition A was 'first' and is concordantly named 'A' bears no significance to either proposition being either true or false; they are simply two propositions with an equal footing which directly relate to each other and serve to contradict each other. One cannot exist without the other. (If there is no 'second' proposition, the 'first' proposition must be false since there IS no other proposition.)

    But, of course, what does William think?

    How is decided that proposition A is called proposition A? One cannot give a name to something that does not exist yet, so it is impossible for both statements to call upon one of the statements before they are named.

    Your question makes no sense whatsoever. biggrin
    Kazoo
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
    Bregt wrote:
    One cannot give a name to something that does not exist yet


    Again you are assuming that one comes before the other. It doesn't. They both exist at the same time, like two sides to the same coin. You cannot have one side of a coin exist by itself without there being a 'flip-side' so to speak. (Unless you envisage the coin as a 2D object - but that's simply a failure of the analogy, not the argument itself.)

    Your question makes no sense whatsoever. biggrin


    Yep, probably the best answer to give. biggrin
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    William, should Bregt take a pill?
    Or is it too late?

    (I realize those are two questions. If it's easier I will happily label the first question 'Proposition A', just to avoid confusion).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Steven wrote
    Bregt wrote:
    One cannot give a name to something that does not exist yet


    Again you are assuming that one comes before the other. It doesn't. They both exist at the same time, like two sides to the same coin. You cannot have one side of a coin exist by itself without there being a 'flip-side' so to speak. (Unless you envisage the coin as a 2D object - but that's simply a failure of the analogy, not the argument itself.)

    But the propositions USE names, meaning that they are given a name, and knew about the fact which one was A and which one was B.
    Kazoo
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Steven wrote
    Bregt wrote:
    One cannot give a name to something that does not exist yet


    Again you are assuming that one comes before the other. It doesn't.


    But actually they do. It is the extended liar's paradox, of which any one of the statements taken out of context is pointless, or irrelevant.

    A true Liar's Paradox where the solution of true and false exist at the same time (which seemed to be your point) would be something like "This statement here is not true".
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Bregt wrote
    Steven wrote
    Bregt wrote:
    One cannot give a name to something that does not exist yet


    Again you are assuming that one comes before the other. It doesn't. They both exist at the same time, like two sides to the same coin. You cannot have one side of a coin exist by itself without there being a 'flip-side' so to speak. (Unless you envisage the coin as a 2D object - but that's simply a failure of the analogy, not the argument itself.)

    But the propositions USE names, meaning that they are given a name, and knew about the fact which one was A and which one was B.


    If they didn't use names, then the individual propositions themselves would not make any sense. We could call 'Proposition A' 'Proposition Sit-on-my-face' and it would make no difference to the logical paradox of both statements. The nomenclature used is simply a way to differentiate the two propositions so as to reach this paradox.

    Terms like 'first', 'second', 'A' and 'B' are incredibly misguiding.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Bregt wrote
    But the propositions USE names, meaning that they are given a name, and knew about the fact which one was A and which one was B.


    The assumption that the propositions themselves have their lable somehow pre-ingrained, suggests a pre-proposition that has not been defined or suggested. It is, in fact, a semiotic metatag that has no bearing on the actual proposition per se.

    Otherwise Steven would just have killed Schrödinger's cat.

    William, should Bregt's doses be increased?
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Steven wrote
    Terms like 'first', 'second', 'A' and 'B' are incredibly misguiding.


    Why?
    They are structure definitions, which help us make sense of the format.

    They can only be misguiding when they are used as a pre-structure (i.e. altering the sequence of propositions).
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Martijn wrote
    Steven wrote
    Bregt wrote:
    One cannot give a name to something that does not exist yet


    Again you are assuming that one comes before the other. It doesn't.


    But actually they do. It is the extended liar's paradox, of which any one of the statements taken out of context is pointless, or irrelevant.


    But the fact that you could 'swap' them round and make no difference to the eventual paradox seems to me that they have to exist at the same time:

    Proposition B: Proposition A is false
    Proposition A: Proposition B is false

    The "first" proposition presupposes that Proposition B already exists. As you said, take one from the other and it becomes pointless, thus no paradox.

    ...surely?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009 edited
    Sure, then it's no problem.
    But in the classic paradox
    "This sentence is true"
    "The last sentence was false"

    the sequence obviously makes a LOT of difference (that's why a true liar's paradox is selfreferential).

    However, your paradox really isn't one:
    Putting it into a formula
    B='A=false'.
    A='A=false' = false.

    Therefore logically
    A= true

    It's not really a paradox.
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Stop! I am right William, right?
    Kazoo
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    MY GOD. DELETE THE FRIGGIN THREAD!
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    MY GOD. DELETE THE FRIGGIN THREAD!

    I see no question.
    Therefore the post has no value.

    William, should Bregt and D. share medication?
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Christodoulides wrote
    MY GOD. DELETE THE FRIGGIN THREAD!


    Why?

    See. I done made a question.
    •  
      CommentAuthorBregt
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    How would deleting a thread help in added value of a forum?
    Kazoo
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
    Martijn wrote
    Sure, then it's no problem.
    But in the classic paradox
    "This sentence is true"
    "The last sentence was false"

    the sequence obviously makes a LOT of difference (that's why a true liar's paradox is selfreferential).

    However, your paradox really isn't one:
    Putting it into a formula
    B='A=false'.
    A='A=false' = false.

    Therefore logically
    A= true

    It's not really a paradox.


    After some mulling, I now see what you mean.

    A is false, B is true.
    B is true, A is false
    A is false, B is true

    A is then true.

    (But surely the system starts over? Surely that formula only works to explain the end of each repetition of the 'paradox'?)

91 to 120 of 274

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 10
  12. >