Is religion dying?

[mikkel_the_dane]

P is not a premise. It is the desired result. Q is the premise, and the rest are just logical steps.
if you find a mistake in any of them, I would be happy to correct it. But you have to give me a number In the sequence.

and P is not in contradiction with Q.

if it were, and i committed no mistake, that would be sensational. It would destroy the reliability of millions of theorems.
so, I need more evidence than that.

ciao

- viole

Okay.

Q = ”I don’t know any Jew”
P = “All the Jews I know are atheists”

You can't get from Q to P without a contradiction, because you can't know any Jews, if you don't know any Jews. Q means I know no Jews.
You are doing a contradiction for the word know. Either you know at least one Jew or you don't know any Jews. You can't do both.

You can say that you subjectively use the words differently than me, and I will accept that, but then the result is that result is relative to different cases of cognition. But you won't accept that because your hidden premise is that your cognition for the words is the correct cognition for all humans.
So we end in that we think differently and that is no a contradiction because our thinking is individual and thus not a case of the same time and place for the same sense, because we are different places.

 

[viole]

You can't get from Q to P without a contradiction, because you can't know any Jews, if you don't know any Jews. Q means I know no Jews.
You are doing a contradiction for the word know. Either you know at least one Jew or you don't know any Jews. You can't do both.

Having Q and P both true, is not a contradiction. You should also work on your logic.

it is a vacuous truth. And vacuous truths, as the name says, are truths. In fact, they can be used at any point of a derivation without any problem, whatsoever.

In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement (a universal statement that can be converted to a conditional statement) that is true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied.[1] It is sometimes said that a statement is vacuously true because it does not really say anything.[2] For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room

Vacuous truth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

anyways, tell me please the step which is fallacious, or a non sequitur. If there is isn’t any, then the conclusion must follow logically from the premise. And if it were really true that a sequence of correct derivations leads to a contradiction from a valid premise, you would have killed the reliability of millions of theorems. Which is obviously not the case.

so, please point to me the step you do not agree with, and we will focus on that.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Having Q and P both true, is not a contradiction. You should also work on your logic.

it is a vacuous truth. And vacuous truths, as the name says, are truths. In fact, they can be used at any point of a derivation without any problem, whatsoever.

In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement (a universal statement that can be converted to a conditional statement) that is true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied.[1] It is sometimes said that a statement is vacuously true because it does not really say anything.[2] For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room

Vacuous truth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

anyways, tell me please the step which is fallacious, or a non sequitur. If there is isn’t any, then the conclusion must follow logically from the premise. And if it were really true that a sequence of correct derivations leads to a contradiction from a valid premise, you would have killed the reliability of millions of theorems. Which is obviously not the case.

so, please point to me the step you do not agree with, and we will focus on that.

ciao

- viole

Get it now. "... For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room."
Yes, that is true for one kind of truth and false for another version of truth.
So we are using different kinds of truth as I suspected.

It depends on how the sentence is analyzed.

 

[viole]

Get it now. "... For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room."
Yes, that is true for one kind of truth and false for another version of truth.
So we are using different kinds of truth as I suspected.

It depends on how the sentence is analyzed.

All my derivations are according to classical logic. which includes propositional and first order predicate logic. Which seems reasonable, because that is what logicians and mathematicians use. Intuitions, emotions, human factors, lies, morality considerations, etc. are useless at this level. In fact, a computer would reach the same conclusions as I.

That sort of agreement is necessary to make any conversation at this level meaningful. For, if truth would mean different thing to different people, the conversation would be hopeless.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All my derivations are according to classical logic. which includes propositional and first order predicate logic. Which seems reasonable, because that is what logicians and mathematicians use. Intuitions, emotions, human factors, lies, morality considerations, etc. are useless at this level. In fact, a computer would reach the same conclusions as I.

That sort of agreement is necessary to make any conversation at this level meaningful. For, if truth would mean different thing to different people, the conversation would be hopeless.

ciao

- viole

Well, truth is different for different people and that is not limited to logic.

Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

So you are not true about how truth works. In fact I understand that we think differently, yet you seems to think that we can't think/feel/act differently. Well, news flash. You are reading that right now.
Your hidden assumption is that the truth is the same for all humans. That is not the case, because if it was the case we couldn't disagree. I have in effect done the actual falsification of the idea that the truth is the same for all humans by doing truth different than you.
You are rationalist and I am a skeptic. Get used to it. We do philosophy differently.

 

[dybmh]

Let me repeat the standard proof with more details and structure. I hope that will help you, and help me to understand what is the real issue.
At present, I still don’t know what bothers you.

First, some definitions to reduce minimize typing:

Q = ”I don’t know any Jew”
P = “All the Jews I know are atheists”
~P (negation of P) = “I know at least one Jew who is not an atheist”
C = “I know at least one Jew AND I don’t know any Jew”

Let’s, start:

1. Q is true (Premise)
2. C is false. It cannot be that I know a Jew, and I know no Jews
3. P is either true or false (exclusive or)
4. P is true if and only if ~P is false
5. ~P is either true or false (exclusive or)
6. If ~P were true, then C would be true
7. Therefore ~P is false. Because of 6), 5) and 2)
8. Therefore P is true. Because of 3), 4) and 7)

So, the conclusion follows from the premises: P is true, and it is therefore the case that “All the Jews I know are atheists”.

The premise is just a fact. Since I know no Jews.

So, you can defeat the necessity of the conclusion, only if you find a step that is fallacious. Or Unjustified.

I cannot exclude a typo, a mistake, or that a step requires more sub steps. And, if you find more of those steps, tell me please only the one with the smallest sequence number, so that we can focus on it, and move to the next.

Failing to do that, will compel you to accept the conclusion. Unless you admit to operate outside the boundaries, and the rules of logic.

So, which one would that be?

Ciao

- viole

#4 is false. P evaluates as true and false see below.

 

[dybmh]

Having Q and P both true, is not a contradiction. You should also work on your logic.

it is a vacuous truth. And vacuous truths, as the name says, are truths. In fact, they can be used at any point of a derivation without any problem, whatsoever.

In mathematics and logic, a vacuous truth is a conditional or universal statement (a universal statement that can be converted to a conditional statement) that is true because the antecedent cannot be satisfied.[1] It is sometimes said that a statement is vacuously true because it does not really say anything.[2] For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room

Vacuous truth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

anyways, tell me please the step which is fallacious, or a non sequitur. If there is isn’t any, then the conclusion must follow logically from the premise. And if it were really true that a sequence of correct derivations leads to a contradiction from a valid premise, you would have killed the reliability of millions of theorems. Which is obviously not the case.

so, please point to me the step you do not agree with, and we will focus on that.

ciao

- viole

As usual, you have cropped out the part of the article which proves you wrong.

"the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise be incoherent and false.

Notice, a vacuous truth includes both "P is true AND P is false" It IS a contradiction which is accepted as true.

P is true if and only if ~P is false

Is not valid for any "vacuous truth". It is also not valid for any empty set.

 

[dybmh]

it is a vacuous truth

From your own source:

the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise be incoherent and false.

they can be used at any point of a derivation without any problem

You are accepting a contradition as true. It considers everything true. ( a vacuous truth is where both P is true and P is false )

Trivialism accepts contradictions as true. ( In spite of any sound reasoning for doing so. )

So, @viole, are you ACTUALLY proving that "All the Jews you know are Atheists", or are you TRIVIALLY proving that "All the Jews you know are Atheists"??? Please be honest. At least with yourself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From your own source:

the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise be incoherent and false.



You are accepting a contradition as true. It considers everything true. ( a vacuous truth is where both P is true and P is false )

View attachment 76686

Trivialism accepts contradictions as true. ( In spite of any sound reasoning for doing so. )

So, @viole, are you ACTUALLY proving that "All the Jews you know are Atheists", or are you TRIVIALLY proving that "All the Jews you know are Atheists"??? Please be honest. At least with yourself.

She seems to be conflating different versions of true.
Because if in the world as such truth is different that the truth she is using. So yeah, she seems to conflate different version of truth.

 

[viole]

As usual, you have cropped out the part of the article which proves you wrong.

"the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true, as would the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise be incoherent and false.

Notice, a vacuous truth includes both "P is true AND P is false" It IS a contradiction which is accepted as true.

With all due respect, I have the slight impression that you do not understand your own mother language, assuming it is your mother language. if it isn’t, it would be understandable.

So, let me add (between parenthesis) what you need, so that you also see it:

For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true (with no cell phones in the room), as would (be vacuously true) the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise (with cell phones in the room) be incoherent and false.

you completely misunderstood the meaning of “otherwise”, in this context, I am afraid.

See it?

ciao

- viole

Ciao



viole

 

[dybmh]

She seems to be conflating different versions of true.
Because if in the world as such truth is different that the truth she is using. So yeah, she seems to conflate different version of truth.

There's a time and a place for optimism. But this isn't one of them.

In some ways deception IS optimism, it's just the dark side of optimism.

In some ways denial IS optimism, it's just the dark side of optimism.

Trivialism IS extreme optimism. I'm an optimist, I know it when I see it.

 

[dybmh]

With all due respect, I have the slight impression that you do not understand your own mother language, assuming it is your mother language. if it isn’t, it would be understandable.

So, let me add (between parenthesis) what you need, so that you also see it:

For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true (with no cell phones in the room), as would (be vacuously true) the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise (with cell phones in the room) be incoherent and false.

you completely misunderstood the meaning of “otherwise”, in this context.

See it?

ciao

- viole

Ciao



viole

Yes. I see it.

None the less, a vacuous truth evaluates as both true and false. Do you see it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

With all due respect, I have the slight impression that you do not understand your own mother language, assuming it is your mother language. if it isn’t, it would be understandable.

So, let me add (between parenthesis) what you need, so that you also see it:

For example, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned off" will be true when no cell phones are in the room. In this case, the statement "all cell phones in the room are turned on" would also be vacuously true (with no cell phones in the room), as would (be vacuously true) the conjunction of the two: "all cell phones in the room are turned on and turned off", which would otherwise (with cell phones in the room) be incoherent and false.

you completely misunderstood the meaning of “otherwise”, in this context.

See it?

Ciao



viole

Yeah, in your head that is true, but your head is in the world.
So what is true of the world?
So can be true of the world that I don't know any Jews and all the Jews I know are atheists?

 

[viole]

#4 is false.

The truth of #4 depends on the antecedents, like in any derivation. So, let‘s check

1. Q is true (Premise)
2. C is false. It cannot be that I know a Jew, and I know no Jews
3. P is either true or false (exclusive or)
4. P is true if and only if ~P is false

looks like your claim is false. In fact #4 is obtained from #3. They are, de-facto, equivalent. You just have to draw a simple truth table to see that.

And since #3 is true ….

it follows that #4 is true, too. Contrary to your claim.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes. I see it.

None the less, a vacuous truth evaluates as both true and false. Do you see it?

This is what we are trying to establish by inspecting my little theorem.

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

This is what we are trying to establish by inspecting my little theorem.

ciao

- viole

It has been established. Your theorum produces ( and it's not just yours, it's the conventional approach ) contradicting results.

The question I keep asking, and no one seems to be answering is: why is the obvious counter-example being ignored?

That's it. If the answer is: "Just because. I want it to be true, so it is." Fine. People do that. It's optimism not logic. Using optimism to be sneaky and lie about things, and pretend that a person has knoweldge that they don't is wrong. I can appreciate that right and wrong are not valued in this discussion. But ignoring a counter-example is illogical.

Do all horses have spots? They do if I ignore all the obvious counter-examples. See what I mean?

So, I'm asking: Why is the obvious counter-example being ignored? See below. The top so-called proof, is from you. The bottom so-called proof, is from me. Why is yours right and mine wrong?

 

[viole]

It has been established. Your theorum produces ( and it's not just yours, it's the conventional approach ) contradicting results.

The question I keep asking, and no one seems to be answering is: why is the obvious counter-example being ignored?

That's it. If the answer is: "Just because. I want it to be true, so it is." Fine. People do that. It's optimism not logic. Using optimism to be sneaky and lie about things, and pretend that a person has knoweldge that they don't is wrong. I can appreciate that right and wrong are not valued in this discussion. But ignoring a counter-example is illogical.

Do all horses have spots? They do if I ignore all the obvious counter-examples. See what I mean?

So, I'm asking: Why is the obvious counter-example being ignored? See below. The top so-called proof, is from you. The bottom so-called proof, is from me. Why is yours right and mine wrong?

View attachment 76689

We can make conclusions about it only when we have reached its conclusions. We are not even in the middle of it of proving that is true. And it is obvious that the theorem is from me. You said I did not prove that P is true, so I am trying to do exactly that. Your job is now to show that my derivation has a flaw.

So, back to the theorem and its analysis. Do you agree that #4 is entailed by #3 (being equivalent), and that therefore the truth of #3 entails the truth of #4?

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We can make conclusions about it only when we have reached its conclusions. We are not even in the middle of it of proving that is true. And it is obvious that the theorem is from me. You said I did not prove that P is true, so I am trying to do exactly that. Your job is now to show that my derivation has a flaw.

So, back to the theorem and its analysis. Do you agree that #4 is entailed by #3 (being equivalent), and that therefore the truth of #3 entails the truth of #4?

Ciao

- viole

The truth of #4 depends on the antecedents, like in any derivation. So, let‘s check

1. Q is true (Premise)
2. C is false. It cannot be that I know a Jew, and I know no Jews
3. P is either true or false (exclusive or)
4. P is true if and only if ~P is false

looks like your claim is false. In fact #4 is obtained from #3. They are, de-facto, equivalent. You just have to draw a simple truth table to see that.

And since #3 is true ….

it follows that #4 is true, too. Contrary to your claim.

ciao

- viole

It depends on if 1 as for true is the same as for true for the rest on the argument. How is one true?

 

[viole]

It has been established. Your theorum produces ( and it's not just yours, it's the conventional approach ) contradicting results.

The question I keep asking, and no one seems to be answering is: why is the obvious counter-example being ignored?

That's it. If the answer is: "Just because. I want it to be true, so it is." Fine. People do that. It's optimism not logic. Using optimism to be sneaky and lie about things, and pretend that a person has knoweldge that they don't is wrong. I can appreciate that right and wrong are not valued in this discussion. But ignoring a counter-example is illogical.

Do all horses have spots? They do if I ignore all the obvious counter-examples. See what I mean?

So, I'm asking: Why is the obvious counter-example being ignored? See below. The top so-called proof, is from you. The bottom so-called proof, is from me. Why is yours right and mine wrong?

View attachment 76689

Anyway, your reasoning here is faulty. In the second case you say:

the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is one Jew you know that IS atheist".
Which is ludicrous.

What you should have written is:

"all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is one Jew you know that IS NOT Atheist".

So, I would suggest you go back to my theorem and see how it fails. If it fails.

Ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Anyway, your reasoning here is faulty. In the second case you say:

the claim "all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is one Jew you know that IS atheist".
Which is ludicrous.

What you should have written is:

"all the Jews you know are Atheists" is false if and only if there is one Jew you know that IS NOT Atheist".

So, I would suggest you go back to my theorem and see how it fails. If it fails.

Ciao

- viole

But for known if I know none and I know some, that is a contradiction.
So again how is Q is true?