[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 306x428, 2DE4CB4D00000578-0-image-a-12_1446091968055.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255694 No.9255694[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>that's a bunch of bullshit. things are either true or false.

How do you respond?

>> No.9255697

>>9255694

Does your mom know your gay?

>> No.9255699

>>9255694
Thanks Plato, but I'm Protagorus.

Holy shit, this conversation is pointless, eh? Wanna get a beer, smoke a joint and make fun of a shitty movie?

>> No.9255701

>>9255694
only rationalists care about truth and never get it

>> No.9255709

>>9255694
The law of non-contradiction is itself an assumption.

>> No.9255755

>>9255709
But it works!

>> No.9255760

>>9255694
prove it

>> No.9255762

Why is this boring fuck so popular with redditors?

>> No.9255767

>>9255694
Sounds like something a sith would say.

>> No.9255769

>>9255755
The 'god makes a rock he can't lift' disproves it desu.

>> No.9255776

>>9255694
If you're not using a many-valued logic with at least 9 values you have no place on this board.

>> No.9255779

>>9255769
Ho shit. I learned it as "god makes a taco so spicy he can't eat it"

>> No.9255781

>>9255694
I introduce him to quantum physics and logic and watch as he slowly loses his belief of the world

>> No.9255783

>>9255755
It doesn't work anymore and you can thank quantum physics for it. Modern logic itself is flawed and outdated.

>> No.9255785
File: 268 KB, 750x499, IMG_0013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255785

>>9255694
>tfw plebs subscribing to non-quantum logic systems try to challenge me
>tfw they are limited in such a way that they don't realize even exists
brainfeels

>> No.9255786

>>9255694

This guy is really intolerable. And strangely enough, he keeps his cool in such an inhumane way.

At least he admits literature has a function. But he puts it at the periphery of life.

>> No.9255788

>>9255779

Simpsons did it

>> No.9255791

>>9255788
probably where I got it from.

>> No.9255792

>>9255769
It works when you exclude silly word games that philosophers use to humor themselves

>> No.9255793

>>9255785
Are there any current philosophers that have dealt with the implications of quantum logic and quantum physics?

>> No.9255794

>>9255786

Do you think Harris ever gets into heated arguments about mundane shit?

Like imagine if his kids are crying over toys or his wife finished the toilet paper and didn't replace the roll...

Can you imagine him shouting at them. I can't picture it.

>> No.9255795

>>9255788
Simpsons was if jesus could microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it

>> No.9255796
File: 78 KB, 559x836, IMG_0014.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255796

>tfw i created the phrase quantum logic to argue with some atheists and now it's already become a widespread meme

>> No.9255797

>>9255786
>Literature, literally the matter that creates and molds national identities unlike anything.
>at the periphery of life
what a silly statement

>> No.9255801

>>9255793
nah, i literally made it up two days ago in a pol thread and people took it up like a sword. it's a scientific foil against atheists, really, or that's how i used it. making arguments exist in a superposition of truth and untruth changes the foundational systems of logic, and renders the objective subjective split irrelevant, as all things become equally valid and invalid simultaneously.

>> No.9255803

>>9255794

'Consider this possibility. Imagine if everyone in your city was me, Sam Harris. Your mayor, your doctor, your entire postal service. The criminals in prisons. Even your dog, somehow, was me. I invite you to ask - would that really be such a bad thing? Imagine the possibilities of a world comprised of only a single, solitary, utilitarian mind. Just think about how smooth and well-maintained the public utilities would be, for example. Your pizzas would show up exactly fifteen minutes after you ordered them. Your kids would get great marks in school. All I'm raising with this thoight is the possibilities of a world in which all are one. Where we think about not being Sam Harris in the same way we think about the slave trade, or FGM. This is a glorious horizon of possibilities I fail to find any flaws in.'
- Sam Harris

>> No.9255804

He's right and you know it, all those labyrinthine syllogisms you construct to argue with this is just you trying to justify your expensive college degree.

>> No.9255805

>>9255694
it's a false dichotomy.

>> No.9255806

>>9255801
No you did not.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-quantlog/

There is a 2002 article in Standford about it and its implications

>> No.9255807

>>9255803

I read this in his stoic voice... Jesus fucking christ

>> No.9255812
File: 47 KB, 550x366, 1474645479026.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255812

>>9255796
>quantum logic is a set of rules for reasoning about propositions that takes the principles of quantum theory into account. This research area and its name originated in a 1936 paper[1]

>> No.9255817

>>9255803

Where from?

>> No.9255818
File: 147 KB, 596x799, IMG_0034.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255818

>>9255806
>insinuating that my inception of quantum logic does not exist in a superposition in time with any other moments of inception
you really are being left behind, son.

>> No.9255820

>>9255694

true, false
right, wrong
yes, no
life, death
good, evil
strong, weak
light, dark

>> No.9255821

>>9255781
>>9255783
Quantum doesn't matter. Things are either true or false, even at the subatomic level.

>> No.9255823

>>9255812
and you, i commend the value of your observation, while simultaneously bewail the tragedy of your blindness!

>> No.9255828

>>9255821
>dat resistance to post-modernity

next thing you'll be shouting about is how new sincerity will return value to true false statements despite their irony.

>> No.9255835

>>9255786
>But he puts it at the periphery of life.
Literally me. I don't know why I am here.
Reading books isn't pleasure in itself to me. I like to reread and rethink one good sentence 10 times instead.

>> No.9255836

>>9255828
Post-modernity is trash

Captcha: Trucks use 2 right lanes

>> No.9255838

>>9255828

things that are true are true even if they have not been or can't be proven.

are there truths which can't be proven?

we'll have remembered how to prove things, when we remember that there's no proof of what is false.

>> No.9255839

>>9255838
Mathematics includes lots of true statements which can't be proven

>> No.9255841

>>9255839
>to smart for paraconsistent mathematics

>> No.9255845

>>9255835

You're more of a person into philosophy then.

Some people just want to enjoy a wole ride. Others pluck for ideas.

>> No.9255850

>>9255694
"False."

>> No.9255856

>>9255838
you are in at least three positions with your proposals. one, being correct, two, being incorrect, and three, being both simultaneously, depending on the nature of the foundational logic you subscribe to, you will predicate all future considerations on the basis of just two of those positions. unfortunately this leaves you a victim of catch-22s and paradoxes, and will only serve to limit you.

>> No.9255863

Who won in his second debate with Peterson?
I'm too lazy to watch it

>> No.9255864

>>9255793
ROBERT ANTON WILSON x1000

>> No.9255866

>>9255839

that's interesting. i don't know if that's true or not though. we can prove that the quantity four, combined with the quantity four, is quantity eight. we know that's true because it's demonstrable. i would hazard a guess that goedels incompleteness theorem is a decent explanation for how the proof must exist, even if we haven't found it. i don't know how we know these things are true, if we haven't proved them, because i'm not a great mathematician.

but i do know that truth can be observed directly, and that you can know a thing is true and be unable to prove it to anyone.

>>9255856

that sounds like sophistry to me. i try to keep things simple.

>>9255850

if one person says, 'truth exists!' and the other person says, 'no, it does not!', doesn't that imply the second person is by his own admission, wrong?

we live in faithless time. and i don't mean specifically in a religions sense. people are just very unsure about almost everything.

>> No.9255881

>>9255866
It's true. You could always check the course books for advanced mathematics where you will run into things that we just take for true but can't prove in mathematics.

>> No.9255883
File: 63 KB, 450x418, IMG_0009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255883

>>9255866
for you, limited man!

>> No.9255888

>>9255845
It's worse than you think. I got myself stuck with early Buddhism and now other philosophers seem to deal with wordplays and irrelevant technicalities

>> No.9255893

>>9255866
if you want to keep things simple, you should become religious and subject yourself to fate, and ignore attempts to describe reality with maths.

>> No.9255896

>>9255883

limits = definition

limis means wall. a thing without definition doesn't exist. our form is the nature of our limits. that which is really unlimited is really not present. a name is assigned to a definition; a definition consists of specific limitations.

and the beginning of wisdom is to call each thing by its proper name.

>> No.9255905

>>9255783
A superposition of 2 states doesn't mean something is in both states. It means it'll be one or the other when you measure it, and all you know is the probability. There's no violation of the law of non contradiction. A super position of true and false doesn't mean true and false, it means you dont know if it's true or false. It's a subtle concept, but non contradiction holds fine.

>> No.9255908

>>9255896
nah the beginning of wisdom is the revelation that labels are irrelevant beyond the self which is finite.

>> No.9255916

>>9255818
It doesn't. Do you even know what any of that means? You sound like Depok Chopra

>> No.9255917

>>9255905
prior to observation, it is both. that's the point. with abstracts, like virtue or love or objectivity, which are things that insist on existing as abstracts with definitions, and yet can never be measured,

>> No.9255921

>>9255694
"Well, i agreed."

>> No.9255924
File: 31 KB, 600x476, IMG_0003.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255924

>>9255916
hey he's a successful guy. i should get into this then.

>> No.9255928

>>9255893

i don't care for what you're implying or your tone.

i find the notion that one can 'describe reality with math' ridiculous. thinking that such a thing is possible is a product of an ironically religious faith in critical reductionist theory.

>>9255908

that's trite.

>> No.9255930
File: 112 KB, 615x609, 8787878.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255930

>le quantum physics in magic retards

>> No.9255934

>>9255928
hey man, you really are losing it. you're getting pissy over the fact that all of your logical interests are both irrelevant and incorrect. taking your useless frustrations out on me doesn't change that.

>> No.9255947

>>9255928
also, it's only trite in your eyes because of your devotion to meaning. you'll be a lot happier when you let that stuff go, you know. as it is you seem to be an angry man.

>> No.9255954

>>9255934
>>9255947

i don't have a clue what you're talking about.

your spiritual/philosophical quips are really not impressing me.

>> No.9255959
File: 105 KB, 1500x1090, IMG_0010.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9255959

>>9255954
okay then!

>> No.9256087

What does it do for argument, the fact that observable beings change their behavior when they are observed

is all argumentation just.. worthless in the face of that fact from physics?

>> No.9256095

>>9255694

>This sentence is false

Then watch as blood starts pouring out of his tear ducts as his autistic brain implodes.

>> No.9256109

>>9256087
All argumentation was worthless anyway, unless you need slaves or validation.

>> No.9256141

>>9256087
>that observable beings change their behavior when they are observed
What

>> No.9256143

>>9255694
>>that's a bunch of bullshit. things are either true or false.
Easy. Prove it. Next question.

>> No.9256149

>>9256095
"sentence" is not a thing, "false" is not an attribute

>> No.9256173

>>9256149
your sentence is false

>> No.9256177

>>9256095
How can your sentence be false when your sentence contains no content other than you defining it as a sentence? Therefore your statement of your sentence being false is false.

>> No.9256205

>>9255796
Impressive

>> No.9256312

On the subject of truth... has Peterson pulled himself out of his own arse yet? Or is he still harping on about his changed definition of truth in order to warrant his belief in religion?

>> No.9256325
File: 15 KB, 255x235, 1f981f9a0b9f9d8816e179a8158a31d770ee3360fc31eb69f4d43287c1a05bfc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9256325

>>9255823

>> No.9256329

>>9255928
most of our discoveries in physics are found to conform to mathematical theorems found decades to centuries prior. there is always the debate of whether math descirbes or forms the foundation and framework of our universe.

>> No.9256330
File: 105 KB, 1200x675, c66.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9256330

>>9256312
>Anything modern, philosophy or otherwise
>Out of its own ass
What do you think?

>> No.9256338

>>9256087
observation really just means interaction. the term observation is a hold over from the early days of quantum theory where we were under the impression that it was the measurements of man alone that caused all this mambo jambo.

>> No.9256342

>>9255786
I don't think he actually sees the values in many books. I think he simply says he does to avoid argument.

>> No.9256352

>>9255803
Got a little bogged down at the pizza part before I was able to get back into the bedrock of the truth he was proposing.

Do you think a world of Sams would ever get bogged down?

>> No.9256369

this statement is false.

>> No.9256370

>>9256312
You do realize that philosophers still debate the matter of truth and that there are many different definitions argued for?

>> No.9256381

>>9256370
Oh, don't get me wrong...I'm fully aware that anything can be discussed or argued in philosophical terms, just that every time I've heard/read Peterson try and make his point about his 'truth' he keeps pivoting or can't quite explain himself. So to me it just seems as though he doesn't fully know what he means himself, and is just using blabber as a justification for his religious beliefs.

>> No.9256406

>>9256369
I see no problems here.

t. politician

>> No.9256431

>things are either true or false
We can make no such claims.

>> No.9256436

>>9256381

Isn't hes explanation of truth just that it is subjective to the evolutionary process and an arbitrary concept limited to the biologic constrains?

>> No.9256439

>>9255783

Models have different applications, on different levels. Newtonian physics, for instance, still serves us well in some elements of moving things through space and everyday motions on Earth. Furthermore, no model (or anything else made by humans) is going to be perfectly applied on every level/circumstance. Try applying quantum physics principles to things on the macro scale, especially in everyday life situations.

It is the same with logic. It is still a very good model of human thinking in other circumstances. And even the scientists & mathematicians working on quantum mechanics still use it in their thinking. In addition, there are modern versions of symbolic/formal logic that differ quite a bit from the classical logic you seem to be referring to. I don't see why someone, living now or among posterity, cannot make a new system of formal logic which provides for a quantum mechanics version for induction which can be used on that level.

>> No.9256442

>>9255694
There are vague truths, this is to say that truth exists (outside of models) but it is to beg the question of what science is trying to do (Is science trying to prove anything or is it a model of practical reasoning and so on), however falsity is difficult to prove, if there is anything outside of human perception and objective reality remains in the vagueness and complexity of scientific proofs, then beliefs are difficult to completely falsify since things are very strange as they are

>> No.9256449

>>9256439
the problem is that people think they can use common logic on uncommon problems

>> No.9256464

>>9255694
>How do you respond?

Mention my physical training and martial arts experience to gain some credibility as the REAL warrior-poet philosopher-king in this conversation.

>> No.9256471

>>9255801

>Implying that some theists, even today, don't use God given reason.

>> No.9256480

>>9255783
there are logics that can work with contradictions ya pleb

>> No.9256493

>>9256449

Yes, that is what I said.

>> No.9256498

>>9255783
How does a computer work again? oh modern logic

>> No.9256500

>>9256149
>>9256177
false is a sentence
check(urass4semen)mate (g)a(y)thiests

>> No.9256558

>>9255803
sounds like him lol

>> No.9256579

>>9256498
>he doesn't know about quantum computers

>> No.9256597

>>9255905
>someone didn't understand the stern-gerlach experiment

>> No.9256602

>>9256579
even normal computers use quantum logic to get specific behaviour out of components

>> No.9256653

>>9256381

That's only because he does not place truth within the most fundamental of ontologies and their related epistemological principles (i.e. the nature of being, the existence of reality, existence of God, etc.). Instead he trys to shoehorn truth into just ethics, all the while iqnoring the deeper level of truths that you need before you can *have* ethics.