/lit/ - Literature

>>9227443
Maybe.

>>9227443
*kneel down*
*unzip his dick*

This sentence is a lie.

^
Is that true or false :^)?

>>9227443
Nesting my definition of truth in a pragmatic Darwinian framework desu. So truth is basically whatever I can argue is beneficial.

Is round 2 against Peterson up somewhere?

>>9227443
Sam Status: Sorted

>>9227472
>implying Harris didn't convince him God isn't real and liberalism is right

>>9227447
Thread should have ended here.

>>9227454
It's not a valid statement aka thing.

>>9227472
>philosophical
>discussion

>productive

>>9227443
prove it

>>9227457
Is you need to nest things in Darwinism then how do you explain Penguins?

>>9227454
Its a meaningless statement

Truth in literature? Good luck with that.

>>9227485
>>9227494
So is
>>9227443
>things are either true or false

>>9227499
No it isn't. They have different subjects.

>>9227443
Where is the border between true and false?

>>9227515
Probability, although its only an informal border

>>9227506
A "thing" is always a linguistic label. The subject is the same as the medium in all cases.

>>9227515
In scientific truth, yes. In science, you want to understand the nature, so if your equation gives the same outcome as nature, it's true.

But in broader perspective, finding a meaning in life, evolutionary perspective, you will never have a fixed point to validate your actions. All the scriptures of the past try to establish this fixed point. Truth will differ everytime you change this fixed point. ( what i mean about fixed point is effect that you hope your actions will create )

So, no.

>>9227515

>>9227443
>Position of electron is a probability function; it has >0 to <1 probability of existing everywhere in any time
> 99,99..% of the time it exists very neatly inside definite spherical boundary

Describe the position of electron using only true/false statements.

Protip: you will need infinite set of statements.

So the correct statement is
>Every statement has a probability of being true between 0 and 1; never exactly 0, never exactly 1
>Every statement A has antistatement A'whose probability is 1 - P(A')

What is a probability? Amount of potential separating the two states

Mathtards blown the fuck out

>>9227548
>In scientific truth, yes. In science, you want to understand the nature, so if your equation gives the same outcome as nature, it's true.


AHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Actually fucking laughed for 10 minutes lmao

>>9227443
>facts are either true or false
That's true, but at best we can say that something is false or give an approximation of the truth.
Using Harris' autistic and worthless epistemology all science is false and no metaphysical statement makes sense.

>>9227565
>this is your brain on philosophy
There's no wonder an average math undergrad is a more intelligent than your average philosophy professor.

>>9227578
Not an argument.

Here is the argument from the podcast.

A woman cheats on her husband. You then ask her "did you or did you not cheat on your husband?" The only response she can give is "yes", answering "no" would be false.

Then you find out her husband had cheated himself, and abused her for years on end. Now her response ("yes") is no longer true.

And that is because you can't embed an ethics framework into the definition of word "cheating", and using a simple definition of word is useless in determining truth.

So >>9227457 you have it backward. His argument is that you can't define true or false without this pragmatic approach, or you'll end up with inaccurate statements like "you slept with a man who is not your husband therefore you cheated".

>>9227586
Neither was your post.

>>9227590
Embarrassing.

Don't criticise people for being illogical when you shitpost. Fuck off back to ribbit, thanks!

>>9227587
What the fuck am I reading? Crawl back to your shitty reddit channel, Peterson

Everything is 50%.

Harris can only engage in a discussion by giving silly micro examples, right?
This dude is unable to think hollistically. Peterson can.

>>9227594
>say something retarded
>get called a retard
>rayddit ex dee

>>9227604
No argument to be found, whatsoever.

Go back to >>>/r/eddit, dork. Nice imgur pic!

Maybe things are just either gay or straight

>>9227606
>>9227604

>>9227443

白馬非馬
a white horse is not a horse

>>9227595

Using simple definitions of words, the kind you find in dictionaries, is only useful for writing tabloid headlines.

WHITE MAN KILLS BLACK TEENAGER

Is it okay to use the word 'kills' if the teenager had pulled out a gun and asked for his wallet?

>>9227617
Yes, Jordy, thats a factually correct statement. Whether it's ethical or not is an entirely different issue, completely disconnected from it's truthfulness. Now go cry on camera some more

>>9227587
>>9227617
Holy fuck.

>>9227587
>Now her response ("yes") is no longer true

but it is still true you fucking retard

>>9227578
Please study quantum physics first before responding to its facts.

It has been proven that no particle occupying energy, space and time can't have definite position; only probability density.

Even you don't have precise position. There is nonzero probability that the next second you are instantly teleported to Bahama islands. Your antiparticle will do the same to conserve energy in the universe. Luckily big particles like you rarely do stuff like that.

>>9227617

This dont look like analytic philosophy, it's just Penal Law (Liszt configurations on the matter) style of argumentation. We can easily implement a system to, in a correct approach, determine if the assumptions are true or false. Not a difficult task, anon.

>>9227621

You're operating under the assumption that when people express themselves through words they chose words based on their dictionary definitions. No, they use them based on cultural usage.

If I tell a racist joke, most people would call me racist, even though a joke does imply a belief in racial superiority -- the standard definition is completely ignored.

Likewise, when somebody uses words like "kill" and "cheat", there are strong implications that are not stated in dictionaries, but are understood amongst non-autistic people.

So your "scientific" approach to language is retarded outside of a court of law.

>>9227633

It's not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Would you be able to charge this woman with adultery based on that statement?

No, therefore it's not truth.

>Sam uses science as the foundation of his philosophy
>he has no STEM training, he doesn't know the first thing about any branch of logic and is method is composed in its entirety by thought experiments and intuition

Is he a fraud? Is he aware of the fact that none of his works have anything to do with science, the scientific method and academic philosophy?
Will he ever kill himself for the shame?

>>9227658
But you've set up your hypotheticals according to an assumed cultural usage.

>>9227652

Continuing my answer, this is a clear problem on how english speaker countries have a more difficult approach to deterministic questions (ex true or false, yes or no). The system of law and philosophy implemented there didn't permited a more deliberative, conclusive approach on the matters, even though this style of argumentation is something german-y. It's not difficult to do this anons, just dont be based on extremely logical answers instead of pragmatic systems. It's a waste of time and one of the bad things analytic philosophy took It.

>>9227644
You're talking shit, explain how that could happen without sounding like Douglas Adams

>>9227664

Yes, this is a weak philosophy system. It's based, grounded on bases that the author itself don't know. The american style of using STEM to disregard Kant is kinda awkard.

>>9227644
>he heard about PDF in his after school special
>he thinks quantum mechanics are applicable to macroscopic objects at all
>he still doesn't understand that probabilistic distribution doesn't in any way break the truth dichotomy

>tfw it's not a baiting autist it's an actual 13 year old

>>9227664
*his method
My bad

>>9227668

How am I supposed to prove cultural usage to you?

>>9227443
"who cares, haha, go fuck yourself you giant loser, haha"
and spit in his face

haha

>>9227673

How is German different? I don't understand how this is based on English rather than language in general.

>>9227688
What does the existence of cultural usage prove to begin with?

>>9227664
>claims weak logic
>appeals to formalities, credentials and authority

>>9227685
>he thinks quantum mechanics are applicable to macroscopic objects at all
Quantum phenomenon is observable on galactic scale you absolute moron

>>9227716
>i like saying things

>>9227716
Elaborate.

>>9227692

Its not that is based on the language, but in the style of countries to logic and law. Americans dont have as much influence from germany as Like, Latin countries and Europe. The way we overcame the exegetic and positivist school of thinking it's much more fundamented on systems of logic than the usa and canada, that it's on arguments, propositions and analytic philosophy. Im not making a valorative statememt here, im just apointing that americans may feel uneasy on approach this style of thnking since their philosophy is fundamented on others systems and authors.

>>9227732
>arguments, propositions, and analytic philosophy aren't built on systems of logic

>>9227737

They are built on other systems, anon. That's not what i meant.

>>9227716
There are several macroscopic phenomena which are explained through underlying QM, doesn't mean that everything macroscopic conforms to QM like your retarded babble about teleporting, you underage dunce. Now fuck off.

>>9227679
>>9227685

Experiment:
1. You are shooting bullets through a wall with a hole onto a target (through the hole).
2. Your bullets spread around a point on the target. They are distributed very precisely according to normal distribution.
3. Carl the office guy opens up a door 10 meters away from you.
4. Suddenly the spread of your future bullets changes. The way they are distributed is no longer normal distribution but slightly varied.

You naturally claim something like 'yeah the open door causes a change in the pressure of gas in room, affecting my bullets or something.

5. Carl the office guy closes the door and your distribution returns normal.
6. Lisa the office secretary opens up a door 15 kilometers away. Your distribution changes. Lisa closes the door 15 kilometers away and your distribution returns normal.

You naturally claim that yeah somehow Lisa opening the door affected my bullets trajectory, yeah science, bitch.

How far can you go with this logic?

>>9227664
>he has no STEM training,
He literally has a PhD in neuroscience and has published experiments in the field.