Thank you for further exemplifying what I said in this paragraph:

"If, by writing a long argument, with letters representing quantities and statements, and using the terminology of FOPL, though the story has only been justified in terms of propositional logic, and then writing a long, elaborate argument in those terms, it's easy to make it too complicated for ourselves, and thereby get ourselves confused about something that needn't have confused us."

Michael Ossipoff

The sign refers to a payment made at any particular time, and then refers to THAT PARTICULAR time in the implication's premise and conclusion.

The implication-proposition is only about two times: The time at which the payment is made, and a time 60 seconds after that.

We need to get that straight: The implication-proposition is only about those two times.

If the customer has chosen 10:00 as his payment-time, then the implication's premise becomes true at 10:00, and was false before 10:00.

...and the implication's conclusion becomes false at 10:01, when the clerk still hasn't given the diamond to the customer.

Had the customer chosen a different payment-time, then the implication would be about that other time instead.

If, by writing a long argument, with letters representing quantities and statements, and using the terminology of FOPL, though the story has only been justified in terms of propositional logic, and then writing a long, elaborate argument in those terms, it's easy to make it too complicated for ourselves, and thereby get ourselves confused about something that needn't have confused us.

Michael Ossipoff

under the rules of FOPL... — andrewk

IF((I've justified my story by FOPL) AND (Andrew's application of FOPL is otherwise correct))

THEN (Andrew's evaluation of my story via FOPL is on topic and correct)

That implication proposition is true, because it's premise (at least part of its premise) is false.

An argument purporting to use that implication to show that Andrew's evaluation of my story is correct would be a valid argument.

...but it wouldn't be a sound argument, because the implication's premise is false.

Michael Ossipoff

If the person is inquiring at time t1, the quantified part of the statement is true for values of t less than t1, by virtue of the above truth tables Null implication) — andrewk

The proposition's premise becomes true right after the payment is made.

The inquiry is made before the payment. Therefore, the implication-proposition's premise is false, and so the implication-proposition is true, at t1.

At some unknown time after t1, the payment was made, making the implication's premise true. 60 seconds after that, the premise's conclusion is false, and so, at that time, the implication-proposition becomes false.

but it is not true for values of t more than or equal to t1. — andrewk

It doesn't refer to any time other than the time at which that customer has paid $5000. That's a time that's an unknown amount later than t1.

Whatever time you choose as t1 and make the inquiry at that time, the premise becomes true when you have made the payment, an unknown time later than t1. .

Hence the statement is not true at time t1 because...

At t1, the payment hasn't been made, and so the implication-proposition's premise is false, and so the implication-premise is true.

it is universally quantified and it is not true for all values of t.

The premise only refers to one one-sided duration--the time before the payment is made. It doesn't refer to all times. It refers to that one duration.

Giving a name to the time of the inquiry doesn't change that.

Michael Ossipoff

but it is not true for values of t more than or equal to t1

Yes it is. It's true until after you've made the payment, some unknown time after t1.

Hence the statement is not true at time t1 because it is universally quantified and it is not true for all values of t.

The implication's premise is false, and the implication is therefore true, until you have made the payment. 60 seconds after you make the payment, the implication becomes false.

The sign doesn't refer to all times. It refers only to time before you make the payment. You choose that time.

Michael Ossipoff

I'm talking about the implications of the truth table and how those p's and q's get translated into English words. — Harry Hindu

An objection would have to be a lot more specific than that.

Language is logical and they both need to be consistent with each other. — Harry Hindu

You'd have to specify what's inconsistent.

Something being true at one time and false at a later time needn't be an inconsistency.

"It's raining today" might be true today and false tomorrow.

The truth-table for 2-valued truth-functional implication doesn't contain any contradictions.

The sign's implication-proposition applied to any time. It purported to be a timeless fact.. The customer believed it.

But, when the money was given, the proposition became false then, by virtue of the fact that the clerk refused to give the diamond.

Was the customer misled? Most definitely.

My metaphysics is based on timeless abstract if-then facts. They're true in the sense that if the premise is true, then the conclusion is true...

...and (regardless of whether the premise is true) if the premise were true, the conclusion would be true.

Of course there are if-then propositions, about hypotheticals, for which that latter condition can be demonstrated.

I make no claim about the premises being true.

By the truth-table for 2-valued truth-functional implication, if the conclusion follows from the premise, then of course the implication-proposition will always be true, regardless of whether the premise is true.

So, the 2-valued truth-functional truth-table agrees that those if-then propositions that my metaphysics speaks of are always true..

I expect that the truth-table for truth-functional implication was written as it was, because the case where the premise is false is irrelevant to the the implication's truth, and so, if the implication must always have a truth-value, then it's convenient and reasonable for it to remain true when the premise is false, because a false premise certainly doesn't falsify the implication.

It's perfectly reasonable to say that an implication-proposition is true if it would be true when it counts (when and if its premise is true).
.
...Michael Ossipoff

AT THAT TIME. Why is this codicil present?
It's a rental! — charleton

I didn't say "At time it will be yours", or "It will be yours only at that time."

I said, "At that time it will BECOME yours.

"...At that time it will become yours" means that, at that time, it will start being yours."

But it won't become yours until it's given to you, which will happen after you pay for it. That's the purpose of saying "at that time".

Michael Ossipoff

Eh?

I assume you are an American.
In English English people are not hired, cars are hired.
What I meant was The notice implies that the diamond was for RENTAL.

Are we clear? — charleton

No, it isn't at all clear what you're talking about, or where you're getting your ideas.

The sign said "...the clerk will give the diamond to you, and at that time it will become yours"

That isn't a rental offer. It's a sales offer.

Michael Ossipoff

Of course there are truths. — Michael Ossipoff

Can you name one truth that you're 100% sure of? — TheMadFool

I'll name two:

1. If all dogs are mammals, and all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals.

2, A posting attributed to Mad Fool asked me, " Can you name one truth that you're 100% sure of?"

Michael Ossipoff

p → q is logically equivalent to ¬p ∨ q, so "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is logically equivalent to "you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk or he will give you the diamond". — Michael

So then why didn't the clerk give the customer the diamond before the customer gave him the money? — Harry Hindu

The sign's implication didn't say anything about the diamond being given without the money being given.

The sign would have been true when the customer walked in because the customer had not yet given the clerk the money.

Of course.

Not only that but is the sign true even when no one reads it? If so, then shouldn't everyone who hasn't given the clerk $5000 get the diamond?

As I said, the sign's implication says nothing about a diamond being given to someone who hasn't given $5000 to the sales-clerk.

[in "(not A) or (B)"] The word, "or" seems to separate the two statements

It more than seems to.

- making them independent of each other, which means that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow the premise.

Incorrect. "(not A) OR (B)" and A-> B are equivalent. They mean that B necessarily follows from A.

All you are saying is "this condition exists or that condition exists". So when the first condition didn't exist, (the customer hadn't given the clerk any money) then the latter condition exists (the clerk should have given the customer the diamond).

No. Remember that the first condition of the OR statement is that the customer has NOT given the money.

When the first condition is true (The money hasn't been paid", the second condition needn't be true. That's the nature of OR.

So, the truth of "You haven't given $5000 to the clerk" means that "He'll give you the diamond" needn't be true.

Michael said:

Also, p → q is logically equivalent to ¬q → ¬p, so "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is logically equivalent to "if he will not give you the diamond then you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk". Do you find this latter conditional problematic?

Harry replied:

The latter conditional is saying the same thing as "Give the money to the clerk and he will give you the diamond". The customer gave the money to the clerk, now where is his diamond?

That's what the customer wanted to know too

Obviously the sign's implication was false after the money was paid: . $5000 was given. The diamond wasn't given. That made the implication false.

That was the clerk's answer. That answer was true, as was the clerk's answer before the money was paid.

Was it fraud? Sure.

Can the customer prove that he paid the clerk? No.

Forget about the "truth" table. Just read the words. They contradict each other, which means that the first statement is never true - ever.

You've been told why the implication was true before the money was paid. Therefore the clerk's assurance at that time was true as well.

MIchael Ossipoff

So, "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond" is true if "you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk" is false. — Michael

That is a contradiction, and therefore can't be logical. That's like saying A x B = 1 if A=0 — Harry Hindu

No contradiction. It's a universally-agreed part of the truth-table for 2-valued truth-functional implication.

↪Michael Ossipoff

So, all you've done is create an impossible scenario where someone actually receives the diamond?

No. The customer didn't receive the diamond. The scenario isn't impossible. Sure, a court would rule that the transaction was fraudulent. But would the customer be able to prove that he gave $5000 to the clerk? Because the customer trusted the clerk, he didn't demand a receipt or bring a witness.

Is it really is no different than a sign saying, “If, at any particular time, you have given $5000 to the sales-clerk (under no circumstances will it be returned), then, within 60 seconds after your giving him that money, a unicorn will appear, and it will at that time become your best friend.”?

One difference would be that, even the most trusting sucker would be maybe a little less likely to believe that that implication proposition would be true after the payment.

But go for it.

Michael Ossipoff

I believe the statement was not true when the person first inquired, because the words 'at any particular time' are not constrained to cover only the past, so they cover the future too. — andrewk

Of course.

It is a universal quantifier: for all t.

Say it how you want. I said "at any particular time".

If the person is inquiring at time t1, the quantified part of the statement is true for values of t less than t1, by virtue of the above truth tables Null implication) but it is not true for values of t more than or equal to t1. Hence the statement is not true at time t1 because it is universally quantified and it is not true for all values of t.

Save yourself all that elaborate muddle.

At any particular time (be it past, present or future), is the time that the premise is about.

For example, that could be as time in the near future, after you've paid the clerk.

At that time (whatever time that be), "if you've given $5000 to the sales-clerk (as of that time)" is the premise of the implication.

Michael Ossipoff..

Make "if you have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk" = p — Harry Hindu

Make it whatever you want, Harry. Make it something different from what I said, if you want to, though that's off-topic.

Michael Ossipoff

One of those times when time is important in logic.

The sign was true before the man gave the clerk money and then it became false. — TheMadFool

Correct. It became false when its premise was true and is conclusion was false.

However, the IF-THEN logical form isn't defined in temporal terms.

The definitions that I found didn't make any mention of time.

To stipulate that the truth-values never change would be to mention a temporal matter, thereby defining implication in temporal terms..

From the logic books I've read, the IF-THEN logical form is timeless i.e. we can't change its truth value over time or space.

That temporal stipulation contradicts your statement above, that implication isn't defined in temporal terms.

And, I just mention, as a matter-of-fact, that obviously that stipulation limits implication's applicability.

A stipulation that truth-values never change would make logic inapplicable to electronic logic-gates, whose inputs and outputs do change.

...or is it just for implications (but not for AND, OR, NOT or NAND) that truth values never change?

Anyway, Michael mentioned that A -> B is equivalent to (not A) OR (B).

...implying that if you let truth values change for OR, then you're letting them change for implication.

As I've already said, my purpose was to show a consequence of a definition that I'd read about at various logic articles put up by universities.. Those articles unanimously stated the same definition, and it made no mention of time, or any temporal stipulation such as that truth values never change.

I don' speak for sources other than those that I found.

Michael Ossipoff

He's applying a system that is irrelevant to the circumstances, — Harry Hindu

I portrayed a situation in which a definition of implication that I'd read (articles at various university websites were unanimous about that definition of 2-valued truth-functional implication) gave an undesirable result. So, if you don't like the result, then don't apply it to such situations.

I acknowledged the store's dishonesty, and that the falsity of the implication when the money had been given constitutes fraud.

Michael Ossipoff

This offer is a HIRE offer.

It has nothing to do with offering employment.
— charleton

The rest of the scenario is of no consequence and is nothing but sophistry.

It's always easy to make a vague, unsupported statement like that..

"at that time it will be yours" implies a limit.

I didn't say "At that time it will be yours." I said, "At that time it will become yours."

Michael Ossipoff

I'm saying it isn't relevent to the topic. The OP didn't include it. — Harry Hindu

Though I didn't include it, I quoted from it, in regards to the story's situations.

Michael Ossipoff.

Let me clarify this more:

The sign includes the premise and the implication-proposition. — Harry Hindu

The sign asserts the implication-proposition. It doesn't assert that proposition's premise, which is only in an "if" clause (as is the nature of an implication's premise)..

Michael Ossipoff

The customer asked if the sign was true, not if the implication-proposition was true. The sign includes the premise and the implication-proposition. — Harry Hindu

Of course the proposition's premise is mentioned, but only as part of the implication proposition.

You can't say A => B without mentioning A.

So no, the sign tells nothing but the implication-proposition.

The clerk said that the sign was true. But only part of it was true and the other part was false. Therefore the clerk lied.

See above.

If at any given moment part of the sign is false and part is true, then the clerk can't say that the sign is true.

The sign doesn't have a part other than its statement of the implication-proposition.

The sign is both true and false, which just makes the sign illogical.

...based on your claim that the sign said more than the implication-proposition. See above.

The sign is an IF-THEN statement. How are IF-THEN statements not true?

By that standard truth-table that i referred to, they're false only if the premise is true and the conclusion is false.

They aren't unless we are missing information to put into the logical system. The implication always follows the premise assuming you have all the right information going in. It is only when you don't have all the information can it seem like the conclusion is false when the hypothesis is true. The missing information is what the clerk didn't tell the customer.

What didn't the clerk tell the customer? The sign spoke for itself, when it told the implication-proposition.

If the customer had been given that information then they wouldn't have been tricked.

I didn't say the clerk was honest or not a crook. I merely said that he didn't lie. The whole truth would have had to include, "After you give me the money, I'll keep the diamond." Of course the clerk didn't volunteer the whole truth (which he wasn't asked about).

If the customer had asked, "If I give you $5000, will you really give me the diamond?", and the Clerk had answered "Yes", then, having been paid, the clerk would have to give the diamond or be a liar.

But the only thing stated or asked about was the truth of the sign's implication-proposition.

So this isn't an example of how logic fails. It is an example of how one can use logic to get the wrong answers when they don't have all the information needed to get the right answer. In order for logic to work, you have to put in all the relevant information.

All the information stated on the sign was the implication-proposition. All the information asked about and answered about was about the truth of that implication-proposition.

Yes, the clerk withheld the whole truth, information that he hadn't been asked for.\

The customer was misled and defrauded.

The clerk was a crook. The sign, by not being honored (true) after the money was given, amounted to fraud. The clerk didn't lie, but his sign's implication-proposition did, by being false after the payment was made. The clerk (who also owned the store) of course committed fraud, and of course that's illegal.

So "Don't try this at home".

Michael Ossipoff

This is completely wrong. In classical logic that "every implication-proposition is true if its premise isn’t true" is based on the fact that there is never any change in the truth value of any proposition — James R Meyer

I'd checked various articles on the subject, put up by various universities. Their definitions didn't include a stipulation about truth values never changing.

Of course It isn't a matter that affects my metaphysical proposal. It was only intended to show that the usual 2-valued truth-functional implication truth-table that I'd read about could lead to an undesirable conclusion.

Michael Ossipoff

What makes you think you didn't understand your declaration of final arbiter? I did. I fully understand that you believe you are in the position of greater understanding. Fine. I disagree. — Rich

And that's what your problem is: Your delusional belief in your understanding of a topic on which you're quite clueless.

Is this about fuzzy relativism?

You're so innocent of any exposure to the subject, that you think that the things I've told you are just one person's personal opinion.

It's alright do disagree. But it would be better to disagree after educating yourself on the subject a bit.

If you want to argue about what is valid and what is true and all of those other arbitrary terms, there is a thread thrashing that out right now.

Actually, there's much in logic about which there's widespread and firm consensus.

Sorry, but it's not a subject for Rich to make up.

My message to you is just that you should educate yourself, at least a little, before you post.

Suffice to say, I don't recognize you as the final arbiter. That belief is your own.

As I said, I'm not the final arbiter. But you're befuddled, all confused about the differences between an implication, its premise, and its conclusion.

Though I'm not the final arbiter, you need to educate yourself, at least a little, before you expound.

You called me Rich. I never called myself anything. Check your facts.

You're using "Rich" as your log-in name.

I've wasted enough time replying to vain, delusional ignorance.

My participation in this conversation is concluded.

Michael Ossipoff

I think Universal Perfection could very well mean that there is no further change.
But I don't think that's going to happen for a long time (if it ever does) — Justin1

As I'm sure others have mentioned, there can't be agreement on what's perfect.

Let's be more modest and speak of adequacy instead of perfection

There might be an adequate societal world in another universe, another possibility-world.

Waiting for it here, or expecting it here, will only lead to disappointment.

Michael Ossipoff

Or course regrettably most people live like that.

I guess they want and choose to, and that's their business.

But they needn't. No one needs to. Not everyone does.

Since existence is marked by want or deficiency, and since satisfaction of this want is unsustainable... — Schopenhauer article from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Who says you need to sustain it?

All who discuss it agree that enjoyment or pleasure is fleeting. So what?

, existence is characterized by suffering.

...only if a person grimly and mechanistically and future-orientedly pursues his conceptualization of enjoyment, and unrealistically expects it to be perpetual, captured and preserved once and for all. As I said, it isn't necessary to live that way.

You know, you don't have to pursue enjoyment. Just act responsibly, ethically and considerately, and do the routine things needed to get by. Do you really believe that nothing enjoyable will happen or arrive if you aren't pursuing it?

...not that there's anything wrong with placing oneself in situations one likes, or doing things that one likes, or pursuing one's likes. Do you really believe that, when doing so, you have to be keeping score, awarding points, and measuring how long it lasts? There are things that a person likes, things that are interesting to a person. There needn't be a reason, purpose, meaning, goal or score.

Why make a big deal about it?

You talk about instrumentality, but there are things that you like for themselves. Instrumental living is for suckers. As everyone knows (but most seem to forget), tomorrow never comes.

What you and Schopenhauer are saying is a narrative--a verbal narrative (...and aren't they all).

Contrary to popular belief, verbal narrative has no relevance to experience.

You're talking about people grimly, future-orientedly and mechanistically chasing their concept of enjoyment and crying if they can't preserve it in a jar. They needn't live that way, but evidently they like to. To each their own.

As the cartoon character Zippy said, "Are we having fun yet?"

Michael Ossipoff

You need to do more (or at least some) listening, and less expounding.
.
I’d said:
.

I merely meant that you can't validly, justifiably disagree with an if-then proposition based on a belief that its premise is false.

.
You replied:
.

Of course I can.

.
I didn’t say you couldn’t disagree. I merely said that you couldn’t validly and justifiably disagree.
.
…because the truth of an if-then proposition doesn’t at all depend on the truth of its premise.
.
(…except that, by the 2-valued truth-functional definition of implication, the falsity of an implication’s premise makes that implication true by definition.)
.
Here’s a tip: Find out something about a subject before you expound on it.
.
Yes, saying that to you is a waste of time.
.
I’d said:
.

The falsity of an implication's premise doesn't make the proposition false.

.
You reply:
.

IF there is disagreement with the premise THEN there will be disagreement with the conclusion

.
First you confuse the implication with its premise. Now you confuse it with its conclusion
.
So yes, if you disagree with an implication-proposition’ s premise then you can (but needn’t) also disagree with its conclusion.
.
The falsity of both the premise and conclusion of an implication-proposition doesn’t imply the falsity of the implication-premise.
.
In fact, by the standard 2-valued truth-functional definition of an implication-proposition, if is premise is false, and its conclusion is false, then the implication-proposition is (by definition) true.
.
But, even if you don’t like that definition, the falsity of both the premise and the conclusion of an implication-proposition certainly doesn’t contradict that implication-proposition.
.
As I said before, if an implication’s premise is false, then the implication is saying nothing whatsoever about the truth of its conclusion.
.
Your belief in the falsity of an implication-proposition’s premise and/or conclusion in no way implies a belief in the falsity of the implication-proposition itself.
.
You need to get it straight, regarding the difference between an implication-proposition, its premise and its conclusion.
.
…or at least you need to get that straight before expounding about the subject.
.

IF there is disagreement with the premise THEN there will be disagreement with the conclusion (as there always is)

.
Actually no. If I believe that an implication’s premise is true, and you believe that its premise is false, then we could both agree that its conclusion is true. …even if we both believe that the implication itself is true (…and even if we both agree that the implication itself is false…and even if we disagree on whether the implication is true or false.).
.
Remember that an implication whose premise is false says nothing whatsoever about the truth of its conclusion.
.

. One might as well forget about everything until there is concensus with the premise/stated belief. I would think this is pretty obvious.

.
…pretty obvious to you, and entirely wrong.
.
Yes, if we don’t know if an implication’s premise is true, then (even if we assume that the implication itself is true), we don’t know if its conclusion is true.
.
But not knowing if an implication’s premise is true doesn’t mean that we don’t know if the implication-proposition itself is true.
.
Some implication-propositions can be shown to be timelessly true, without testing them by looking at their conclusion in every instance. Some would just be agreed by all to be true, without argument.
.
For example, my metaphysics is about abstract if-then facts, and I don’t claim that all of their premises are true, or claim anything about the “reality” or “existence” (whatever that would mean) of the abstract facts or what they refer to.
.
What if it can be shown by argument, or it’s otherwise agreed, that an implication-proposition is intrinsically, inevitably, timelessly true?
.
Unless someone shows an instance of its premise being true and its conclusion being false, there’s no reason to doubt that demonstration or agreement. (…unless someone shows an error in the demonstration.)
.
I’d said:
.

But, even if you don't like that standard definition, the falsity of an implication's premise certainly doesn't make the implication false.

.
You replied:
.

Yes, when people agree, they will agree. It is not true or false, it is the nature of human beings. Agreement (consensus) is often restated as facts. Despite this, it remains a belief.

.
…none of which has any bearing on this topic.
.
And, contrary to what you seem to mean, there really are facts. But we’ve been over that.
.
I’d said:
.

You call yourself "Rich". That's a fact. Maybe "Rich" is really your first name. That, too, is a fact.

.
You answered:
.

No one knows what Rich is. You can say something about it and I might agree, but suppose I'm a hacker and have nothing to do with the name Rich?

.
Irrelevant. You call yourself “Rich”. As I said, that’s a fact.
.

All information is subject to ambiguity some more so than others.

.
No, you call yourself “Rich”, by using it as your login-name, and signing your posts with “Rich”. That isn’t subject to ambiguity.
.
Maybe each “Rich” post is really from a different person. Fine. Right now you’re signing your post “Rich”. Thereby, you un-ambiguously calling yourself “Rich”.
.
If all dogs are mammals, and all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals.
.
That’s another fact that isn’t subject to ambiguity.
.

You form beliefs but it doesn't make it a fact.

.
I never said that all of your beliefs are facts.
.

The problem with most analysis of the nature of things is that people are in need such a hurry to reach conclusions that they don't even pause for a second to consider alternatives that would undermined their conclusions.

.
Exactly! That’s why you’ve got to check your conclusions before you post.
.
Michael Ossipoff

We exist so have to survive and entertain ourselves. — schopenhauer1

Entertaining ourselves--What a terrible chore! :D

Michael Ossipoff

Where is the fact? It is simply a proposal (hence the proposition). — Rich


Rich added:
— Rich

Because you say so? Suppose sometime disagrees?

I replied:

If you doubt that premise, that doesn't mean that you disagree with or challenge the if-then proposition.

Rich answered:

I just did.

I didn't mean you couldn't disagree. Obviously you can disagree with anything that you want to. I merely meant that you can't validly, justifiably disagree with an if-then proposition based on a belief that its premise is false.

To get an idea regarding what you're talking about, i recommend that you re-read the post that you're "replying" to.

The falsity of an implication proposition's premise doesn't make the impiication-proposition false. In fact, by the standard 2-valued truth-functional definition of an implication, the falsity of an implication's premise makes the premise true.

But, even if you don't like that standard definition, the falsity of an implication's premise certainly doesn't make the implication false.

You're repeating your previous comments, without paying attention to the answer that was given.

Finding "facts" outside of philosophy class is actually quite difficult.

Facts aren't at all difficult to find.

You call yourself "Rich". That's a fact. Maybe "Rich" is really your first name. That, too, is a fact.

Those are just 2 examples. There are many other uncontroversial facts.

Establishing the premises of implications might be difficult. For example, regarding the if-then facts on which my metaphysics is based, many or most of their premises may very well be false, because I don't make any claims about anything being real or existent.

(In fact, because "real" and "existent" are metaphysically undefined, any claim that something is or isn't "real" or "existent" is a claim using meaningless words.)

That in no way invalidates the if-then facts.

But your statement quoted above seems based on a misunderstanding of what "fact" means. You're probably just expressing, in another way, your suspicion about the truth of the premises of some if-then facts. I've answered that.

Michael Ossipoff

Humans are animals. The animal is unitary, no separate body and "Consciousness".

Animals, including humans, are purposefully-responsive devices, not different in principle from mousetraps, refrigerator lightswitches or thermostats. (..but differing from then in complexity, and natural-selection origin) — Michael Ossipoff

I kind of feel like starting to throw ad hominems around after reading that, but then again the inclusion of humans confuses my insultedness. I guess I'm fine with the conclusion and the reasons based on which you believe what you believe about animals, but I'm still insulted by the way you draw the simplicity of humans from the simplicity of animals. — BlueBanana

I'm not saying anything about a simplicity-comparison between humans and other animals. I recognize that humans are different from the other animals in some ways (but maybe not as different as they think they are--For instance, the name "Homo Sapiens" sounds to me like a pompous vanity.)

Yes we're different from the other animals, and other purposefully-responsive devices, in some ways, But I'm talking about "in principle".

And please don't throw the ad-hominem label "Scientificist" "Science-Worshipper", "Materialist", "Eliminative Physicalist" or "Atheist" at me. I'm not any of those (...even if I sound like one on this subject.)

Our individual subjective life-experience-stories are hypothetical stories, complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypothetifcals. Those stories are about the experience of a natural-selection-generated purposefully-responsive device called an "animal". ...of the human variety, in our case.

Though that story structurally consists of abstract if-then facts, it can also be said that the primary, central, metaphyscally-prior aspect of it us us, the experiencer. ...because, since the story is about our individual subjective experience...about each of us, we're its central, primary, essential component..

In answer to the objection about whether abstract facts are "real", or "exist", I don't claim that they're real or exist.

In answer to the question about how a hypothetical story consisting of a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts could make or be a real existent world, I don't claim anything about anything being real or existent.

But, for the purpose of this discussion, of course this physical world is "actual", in the indexical sense of "in, of, or consisting of the world in which the speaker resides."

So I'm not any of those labels that I listed above. My metaphysics is an Eliminative Ontic Structural Subjective Idealism.

Michael Ossipoff

I didn't say "Metaphysics is the limit of what can be discussed...," I said, "...there are limits to what can be said about the metaphysical." — Sam26

And I agreed. If metaphysics is what can be said about what is, then it's reasonable to say that there are limits to what can be said about metaphysics. That's obvious.

Wittgenstein thought that the boundary between what can be sensibly talked about is the boundary between "the world," and the metaphysical. I do disagree with Wittgenstein on this point. It sounds like you agree with him, if I understand your point.

I don't agree with what you quoted him, above, as saying (but I don't know what he meant by "the metaphysical" and "the world")..

But let me guess:

"The world": This physical world.

"The metaphysical": Metaphysics, and what it can discuss. (...by which I mean what can be said about what is).

With those two meanings, your Wittgenstein quote sounds to me like the opposite of the truth. if he's saying that metaphysics is where un-discussability starts.

Maybe he just means something different by "the metaphysical". But if he means that metaphysics is un-discussable, then it's most odd that there has always been so much metaphysical discussion. :D

I don't think it's productive to try to figure out what Wittgenstein, or any other classic philosopher meant. People here often have an inclination to let the classic literary philosophers, and current and recent acacemic philosophers, set the terms and the topics. That's called being led by the nose.

I suggest that a lot of time and effort is wasted by faithfully pursuing and endlessly trying to interpret those Philosophical Scriptures.

You make it sound so obvious, as though I'm pointing out a truism.

Forgive me for not saying that you were wrong.

If you assert that you were wrong, can you support that assertion?

There is much disagreement about these points.

That's a safe bet.

"I think we all agree that metaphysics, discussion, description and argument don't cover or apply to all of Reality." — Michael Ossipoff


I'm glad you think we all agree

It's wonderful that you're glad.

..., but you must not be paying much attention to what people write.

So then you believe that metaphysics, discussion, description and argument cover and apply to all of Reality.

Forgive me for misrepresenting your position.

Michael Ossipoff

"If all dogs are mammals, and all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals. "— Michael Ossipoff

Where is the fact? It is simply a proposal (hence the proposition). — Rich

It's more than a proposition. It's a true proposition. That makes it a fact.

You said "If". Suppose someone doesn't buy into your 'If".

The proposition says nothing about a case in which its premise isn't true. The proposition only says something about the case in which all dogs are mammals and all mammals are animals.

If you doubt that premise, that doesn't mean that you disagree with or challenge the if-then proposition.

You are confusing consensus on a proposal with some sort of an idea that you call a fact or truth.

Since the premise is the part that you challenged, I must assume that the consensus that you're referring to is consensus about the premise. See above.

Having said what I said above, I should quality that statement a bit, by quoting a standard definition:

As "implication" is standardly, 2-valued truth-functionally, defined, an implication proposition is true unless its premise is true and its conclusion is false. And so the mere falsity of its premise would be enough to make an implication proposition true, by the standard 2-valued truth-functional definition of implication.

I tell a story based on that definition, at the Logic and the Philosophy of Mathematics sub-forum at this website, in a thread entitled, "A guy goes into a jewel-store owned by a logician who never lies."

My metaphysics is about abstract facts, which could very well contain a lot of false premises. (I don't claim that anything exists). But I claim that, for those if-then propositions, the premise, if true, would always make the conclusion true. Therefore, those if-then propositions that I refer to can't not be true, even by the standard 2-valued truth-functional definition that I quoted above.

...so they're if-then facts.

Michael Ossipoff

However, there just may be limits to what can be said about the metaphysical, i.e., language itself may impose limits on what can be said — Sam26

Of course. How could it not?

Metaphysics is the limit of what can be discussed, described, argued.

I think we all agree that metaphysics, discussion, description and argument don't cover or apply to all of Reality.

, but it's difficult to know where those limits are,

Sure, it's difficult to say what's unknowable, undiscussable, un-describable. But it's not difficult to point to and discuss things that are discussable.

Though little can be said about what's past metaphysics, we're familiar, from our discussions, with what metaphysics covers.

Michael Ossipoff

Of course there are truths.

Facts are true, or they wouldn't be facts. What is a truth, if not something that's true?

There are lots of facts. Here's one:

If all dogs are mammals, and all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals.

Of course there are lots of other facts too.

Michael Ossipoff

What is conscioisness anyway? The Turing Test doesn't actually detect consciousness does it? It can't differentiate real consciousness from one that's simply a mimic. — TheMadFool

Any device that could mimic consciousness would be as conscious as the conscious beings that it mimics. It would be a duplicate of them.

What that means is we can't be sure if our consciousness is NOT artificial.

Sure we can. I've told what's wrong with the Simulated-Universe theory.

Michael Ossipoff

I believe that life is continuous so you will have a new body when you die. — bahman

Probably so. Contrary to popular belief, it's probably a better default presumption is its negative.

I mean, we're here, and whatever the reason for that is, and if that reason continues to obtain at the end of our life, then what does that suggest?

Michael Ossipoff

The wedge between winners and losers. Yay!! How meaningful! — Anthony

That's what I'm arguing against

Michael Ossipoff.

Why should kids get used to accomplishment being rewarded — Anthony

At first in my post, I said that rewarding accomplishment would prepare kids for the rewarding of accomplishment in the adult world. But, really, just because that's going to happen to them later doesn't mean that it should be dumped on them in school.

So, in the rest of my post (comprising most of the post), i spoke of letting people study what interests them, what they like. For one thing, it's obvious that kids will study much more attentively if it's something they like and are interested in.

So I think rewards and other coercions are a negative, not a good thing.

So I didn't mean what you thought I meant--I only said it in the short beginning part of the post--and then disowned and renounced it.

though it is the incipience of class warfare?

That was one reason that I gave for why it's wrong, and a mistake and dis-service, to reward and praise some students, and to hold them up to the others as better. ...to divide the students into approved and disapproved kids, winners and losers, high and low. Better and not-as-good.

What I suggested has nothing to do with class. It was only about individual preferences of students.

What is accomplishment? Money? Fame?

If they're going to be faced with that after graduation, that's no reason to impose it on them in school.

It's no reason to impose those regrettable values on the kids' curriculum.

Michael Ossipoff

Something like a mousetrap is simply compelled into movement by events in its physical surroundings. — CasKev

It's compelled by events in its surroundings, and by it's own preferences (It prefers to snap when its trigger is pressed)

...as is a human.

Admittedly the human's preferences are more complicated than those of the mousetrap. Like a Roomba, a human must deal with more than one input, and must do more than one thing. Humans and Roombas are more complex than mousetraps, different in degree from mousetraps, and from eachother.

What a person decides or chooses is determined by his/her preferences (inborn and acquired) and surroundings and events (present and past).

That's a good thing. It means that "our" decisions and choices aren't really ours. It unloads from us the burdens of those choices and decisions.

The person's role is merely to evaluate the possible choices in terms of which better suits his/her preferences, given the circumstances of his/her surroundings. Other than that, it's decided for you. That isn't a large role.

That can be reassuring when there's a seemingly difficult decision or choice.
-----------------
A Roomba is more complex than a mousetrap, especially the more recent Roomba models.

A Roomba's preferences are more complex and elaborate than those of a mousetrap.

A human's preference are more complex and elaborate than those of a Roomba

But the principle is the same, for all purposefully-responsive devices, including moustraps, refrigerator-lightswitches, thermostats, amoebas, insects, fish, lizards, birds, rats, wolves, cats, dogs, and humans.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

No, because those instances of refraction are completely consistent with known physics.

.
You replied:
.

And what if "known physics" was just a computer program?

.
My objection to Simulated-Universe didn’t have anything to do with proving Simulated-Universe false by observational evidence. My objection to Simulated-Universe is an objection in principle: A programmer and the running of his program can’t create what already timelessly is.
.
I’d said:
.

In my proposal, your life-experience possibility-story isn’t being generated as your experience unfolds. That story is already timelessly there. The time that you experience is within that story-system, and that story is across its own time, not generated in time.
.
The complexity of your experienced world, and its self-consistency, make it difficult to explain how a person could write that story on-the-fly during his/her first day of life, immediately after being born (and in late fetal life, for that matter).

.
You replied:
.

Like I said, the world is generated at the beginning based on a seed. So the world is already there as an algorithm that is then used to create the landscape as you move. The landscape is created on the fly based on the seed. The seed is what you would refer to as what would be timelessly is. So we're are both talking about the same thing.

.
Alright, but that seed would have to already encompass and be the whole life-experience possibility-story, with nothing new being created in time, because all that’s happening in time is the individual’s perception of unfolding events--with the whole experience-story (or maybe a suite of similar ones—we don’t know exactly what story we’re in) already there.
.
I’d said:
.

That’s a big assumption. You’re assuming that, for some reason, there’s that brute-fact world, and we just model it by logic and mathematics.

.
You replied:
.

It's not an assumption.

.
That you’re in a world isn’t an assumption.
.
That that world is fundamentally existent and, in some meaningful metaphysical sense, more than the complex logical system whose events and relations it duplicates is a brute-fact assumption.
.
You said:
.

It would be an assumption that mathematics is fundamental to reality

.
Mathematics isn’t fundamental to Reality.
.
(Using the word “reality” without a modifier, I capitalize it as “Reality”, because, without a modifier it refers to all of Reality.)
.
And have I been saying that mathematics is fundamental to metaphysical reality? What I’ve been saying is this:
.
Among the infinity of complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, there inevitably is one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
I can’t prove that Materialism’s fundamentally existent physical world that is, somehow, more than that, doesn’t superfluously exist, as a brute-fact, and an unverifiable, unfalsifiable proposition, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, that complex logical system that I referred to above.
.
The main requirement for your life-experience possibility-story is that it be self-consistent, non-contradictory.
.
That’s because I consists of facts, and there’s no such thing as mutually contradictory facts.
.
Where mathematics comes into it is: Physical laws are at least often mathematical. As I’ve said, a physical law is a hypothetical relation among a set of hypothetical physical quantity-values. As a relation among quantity-values, of course a physical law is, by definition, mathematical.
.

- as if we could only look closer at quarks, we'd find numbers and algebraic equations. We don't. We find relationships and we model those relationships using numbers and characters.

.
We “model” physical quantity values with numbers because they’re quantity values, and numbers denote quantity values. Relations between numbers are, by definition, mathematical.
.
When physicists examine and investigate the physical world they find mathematical relations among physical quantity values. They suggest theories that propose certain relations among those quantity values. That’s what a physical theory is. Sometime they’re wrong, but sometimes such a theory keeps being confirmed and is never refuted. Sometimes a physical theory turns out to need refinement, in order to be consistent with the latest complete set of observations.
.
As relations among quantity-values, yes those physical theories are mathematical.
.
But of course a person’s ordinary daily experience isn’t entirely mathematical. The mathematical nature of physical reality is only experienced when someone examines, investigates the physical world more closely.
.
That’s why I don’t emphasize mathematics, as does MUH. I speak, instead, of a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals. As I said, that story’s main requirement is self-consistency, non-contradiction.
.
You said:
.

Different beings (us vs. aliens) will use different characters to represent say the relationship between energy and mass.

.
We’d speak different languages too. That doesn’t mean that our physical and metaphysical reality doesn’t consist of a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts.
.

An alien equal sign will probably look different. Because the numbers and characters we use are arbitrary, then it should be obvious that we won't find mathematics as a fundamental part of reality.

.
Mathematics isn’t a fundamental part of Reality. Mathematics is a fundamental part of physical reality.
.
No one’s saying that when examining matter with an electron microscope, the physicist will observe an algebraic formula written out on the surface of a piece of matter.
.
But yes, physicists do find relations among physical quantities. Quantities are numbers. Relations among numbers are, by definition, mathematical.
.
So yes, physicists find mathematical relations among physical quantities.
.
As I’ve been saying:
.
A set of physical quantity-values, and a relation among them (called a “physical law”) are parts of the “if “ premise of an if-then fact.
.
…except that one of those physical quantity-values can be taken as the “then” conclusion of that if-then fact.
.
Obviously any particular physical quantity-value can be part of the “if “ premise of some if-then facts, while also being the “then” conclusion of other if-then facts.
.
I’ve also given an example of the fact that any fact about our physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact.
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, then you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”
.
And, as I said, there’s a complex system of such inter-referring if-then facts, whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.

Again, it is the relationships that we are modeling, and that aliens would be modeling.

.
Yes, it’s the relationships that are fundamental, physically and metaphysically. Relationships among physical quantities (such relationships are mathematical). Relationships and inter-reference among abstract if-then facts. You could word it by saying that physical and metaphysical reality are all about relationships, consisting of abstract-facts, and inter-reference among them.
.
The Materialist’s “stuff “ for the if-then facts to be about, is a brute-fact belief of his.
.
Contrary to popular belief, there needn’t be concretely objectively existent and real “things” and “stuff” for if-then facts to be “about”.
.
“If there were ____, and if there were ______, and if ___________ were _____, and if ______ were ______then _______ would be ________”.
.
An if-then proposition of that form could be one that is inevitably true regardless of whether there are really any material things at all.
.
As for what “exists”, the word “exist” isn’t metaphysically-defined, and causes many completely unnecessary arguments.
.

While we use different symbols, we will both be referring to the same thing.

.
Yes, we’d all be referring to the same mathematical relations among physical quantity values, because we all live in the same physical universe (let’s assume that your aliens live nearby enough so that the physical constants have the same values that they have here).
.
Newton’s approximate dynamical laws would have been discovered by those aliens. If they’re as advanced as our physicists, then they’d have found special-relativity too. Maybe they’d have worked out general relativity better than our physicists have, or something else with more reliable predictive value. Maybe they’d have a consistent physics that explains the acceleration of the recession of the more distant galaxies.
.
They’d know about Galileo’s kinematic equations.
.
If they were interested in investigating the matters that Lagrange and Hamilton investigated, then they’d know about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics.
.
Likewise with all of physics. If they investigated the same things, they’d find the same things, because they’re in the same physical universe (and assumed to be near enough to us that the physical constants are the same for them as for us.)
.
And yes, they’d probably use different symbols.
------------------
As for the Simulated-Universe theory, I don’t advocate it.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I would say consciousness. As intelligently as you could ever program AI to be, you still have to tell it how to react to stimuli. Even if you program complex algorithms for decision-making based on probabilities, in the end, the machine's actions will only be a result of electricity passing through circuits according to rules established by man. There will never be the conscious observer witnessing the 'thought' process, or truly feeling emotions. — CasKev

That's chauvinistic. If an android were built to perfectly model human behavior then, by the meaning of consciousness it has human consciousness.

Unless you believe in Spiritualism.

Even when we say that a mousetrap doesn't have consciousness, we're expressing chauvinism.

Where do you draw the line, for consciousness? Mammals? Vertebrates? Animals? Eukaryotic cellular organisms? All cellular organisms (including bacteria)? All biological organisms coded by DNA or RNA (including viruses)? All biological organisms (including prions)?

(Viruses show purposeful response. Maybe that term's meaning would have to be generalized more, in regards to prions, but maybe that generalization is reasonable.)

What about an android that exactly duplicates human behavior?

The uncertainty and lack of agreement on where the line should be drawn suggests that "consciousness" is chauvinistically-loaded, and isn't a useful term for general comparison of purposefully-responsive devices.

In general, then, "purposefully-responsive" is more useful term than "conscious".

Michael Ossipoff

I'd said:

That remains true even if there aren't any Slitheytoves or Jaberwockeys — Michael Ossipoff

Janus replied:

No, it remains valid, not true. You need to brush up on your terminology. I suggest you take a course in elementary logic. — Janus

Actually, a check of various university sources shows that, as implication is conventionally defined, it's unanimous that A => B is true unless A is true and B is false.

By that definition, if it could be shown , for some A and B, that the truth of A would always mean that B is true, then A => B can never not be true.

Perhaps an elementary course in logic would be helpful for Janus.

Michael Ossipoff

Arguably, because accomplishment is strongly rewarded in adult society, then kids in school should get used to that, by similar accomplishment-rewarding in gradeschool.

But maybe not, because rewarding the high-performers, can make some of the other kids resentful about how relatively un-rewarded and un-praised they are. ...which could and often does result in their beating up a kid who's doing better in school.

I've long felt that the achiement-orientation of school is wrong, and unhelpful. Just give kids an opportunity to find out about things that they like, in addition to things that are known to be valuable and useful. Though valuable, useful subjects should be taught, there should be as much latitude as possible within those subjects for students to still study whichever aspect of them they like. Additionally, though, students should have a large percentage of their school and homework time available for subjects entirely of their own choice. A kid who wants to study dinosaurs might later become a paleontologist. It's called an "elective", and it should be available even in elementary school.

A kid who isn't interested in academics, but who loves hot-rod magazines--Why shouldn't he have auto-mechanics available as an elective? Elementary school is too early for that? No, because there could be models of car engines, transparent model engines, and model-engines and model-cars that can be realistically taken apart and put back together, for example. Instruction could be appropriate for age. By the time that kid reaches highschool, he'll be proficient in taking an engine or a car apart, at least as much so as possible from increasingly realistic, increasingly lifesize, models. ...which, by junior high, at least, could be actual engines and cars (with all the necessary safety precautions).

If a 6th or 7th grader is highly proficient in mechanics, and only interested in that, then why shouldn't he have the opportunity to learn to repair small, or relatively small, engines?

Likewise for a kid who is interested in athletics instead of academics. No wonder there's so much negative attitude and negative response from kids who aren't interested in academics. They're dumped into academic classes and made to feel useless and merit-less if they aren't good at it.

For kids who are good at academics, that's good, and they should be encouraged too, but don't make a big deal of it and hold them up as better than the others.

Michael Ossipoff

Bitter Crank is being at least semi-serious here, and obviously means his details allegorically, and so I'll comment:

What happens is that you become a disembodied mind — Bitter Crank

I've been saying that, at the end of lives, there's no memory that there ever was, or could be such things as body, worldly life, identity, time or events.

drifting invisibly somewhere in the dim, dusty, dark matter-cluttered cosmos

Oh, drifting around in this physical universe with the dust and other matter? We can take that as comedic allegory.

The contents of your once embodied mind survive death

There can be no experience of a time when there's no experience. Only your survivors will experience the time after your complete shutdown.

, and whatever was there at the moment of death is all you will have for the 1000 year duration of your disembodied existence.

The "1000 years" is more comedic allegory, justified by the fact that shutdown is a gradual process. But, at the end of lives, it's misleading to imply that there's anything like waking consciousness for very long. It soon becomes just sleep.

But few would agree that the moment of death determines your subsequent experience. It's the general course of your overall life that makes the difference. But, below, Bitter Crank says that too.

What is the upshot of this situation?

Whatever you had when you died is the cud you will be chewing on for the duration (which is 1000 very, very slowly passing years, after which you abruptly dissipate.

Dissipation will be gradual, in the sense that your sleep will become deep-sleep, which will become ever deeper.

I don't know how long will be the subjective duration of your waking consciousness during the death process. Easterners speak of heavens and hells before reincarnation. Maybe, for the extremely negatively deserving, a hell could have very long subjective duration. I wouldn't want to even try to guess how long ...likewise a heaven for the extremely positively-deserving.

I don't claim to know about the heavens and hells (so no need to challenge me on that), except that they sound a lot like what the near-death experiences (NDEs) report the beginning of.

(because god is slightly merciful)

Atheists talk about God more than anyone else does.

...no heaven, no hell

...you hope.

Good luck, Crank :D

, just whatever was between you ears when you dropped dead.

..and you're sure that, for you, there isn't any hell in there?

I advise this:

Get busy and start reading as much as you can! Listen to as much music as possible, see as many movies, have as much sex, eat as many delicious foods, etc. as you can. in other words, load up with as much baggage as you can hold because you will be taking it with you. If you have filled your mind with crap, then that is what you are going to be thinking about for 1000 years.

There are no bookstores, media outlets, fine restaurants (or bad ones either), or sex organs after death. You will not be able to fill the tank once you are dead. No conversations allowed, either. (No mouths to speak, no ears to hear, no telepathy either, just in case you thought you'd be able to tap into somebody else's supply.)

All perfectly good advice (...if given the benefit of the doubt and interpreted favorably).

...except that it sounds like gung-ho hedonism, rather than the Kama and Dharma referred to by the Hindus. Even pursuit of one's own satisfaction and enjoyments should be done yogically, moderately, controlledly and self-honestly. Not just "Spill wine", and "Party like hell", etc.

Basically, there's no purpose or meaning in life. As the Hindus say, it's just for play, "Lila".

But, secondarily (that's my impression) , because others' lives are important to them too, you want to live right, in regards to your relation with other living beings.That right-living is called "Dharma" by Hindus. In general, It's self-responsibility and self-honesty.

According to their tradition, a life should be sufficient in both of those regards--1) Play, free enjoyment, openness to life, and exploration; and also 2) Ethical, non-harmful, right-living. In other words, live and let live.

...instead of accumulating longing, dis-satisfaction, regret and guilt.

Those two considerations are the Hindu purusharthas of Kama and Dharma. It's my impression that the former is primary and the latter is secondary, deriving its importance from other beings' lives being important too.

The matter of whether, at the end of this life, a person will reach the end of lives that we've both been referring to, or instead will experience reincarnation, is a whole other topic. For the purpose of this discussion, I've accepted the assumption that there isn't reincarnation. But Bitter Crank can't be sure of that.

I suggest that there's probably reincarnation, because it's metaphysically-implied.

If so, it's unlikely that anyone at these forums will reach the end-of-lives at the end of this life.

If there's reincarnation, then perfection of one's lifestyle (as described above), over (finitely) many lifetimes, will inevitably eventually result in life-completion, and the end-of-lives.

That suggestion that there might be, or probably is, reincarnation, is very unfashionable here at these forums.

For that reason, to argue that issue would be a distraction for this topic, and that's why I've assumed, in this post, that the end of lives will occur at the end of this life.

Michael Ossipoff