Chaos Magic

[Robin]

I would say because it's impossible to assert the logical impossibility of a relation between two undefined terms.

Oh brother.

You are saying that if it impossible to assert the logical impossibility of a relation between to undefined terms then the relation between the two undefined terms is logically possible?

 

[Malerin]

So what you are saying is that anything that is known to be possible is known to be possible?

No, if X is possible, then X is not possibly impossible.

 

[Malerin]

On the other hand:

X is a giraffe iff X is Giraffa camelopardalis.
All zebras are Giraffa camelopardalis
therefore all zebra are giraffes.

Is logically consistent isn't it?

If that's how you define "Zebra". Since we define zerbra as something other than "Giraffa camelopardalis" Zebras can't be giraffes.

ETA: if you define "circle" as "The plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments; a three-sided polygon", then all "circles" are "triangles".

 

[Robin]

No, if X is possible, then X is not possibly impossible.

A different statement entirely.

 

[Nonpareil]

Rationality is always assumed. Nobody would claim evidence should be irrationally interpreted.

If rationality is always assumed, then anecdotes are not evidence, because, rationally, they should not affect one's belief in a proposition unless they possess other supporting evidence.

So far, you haven't said anything to contradict this. You're just running around in circles and repeating yourself.

law·yer noun \ˈlȯ-yər, ˈlȯi-ər\
Definition of LAWYER
: one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters

law·yer noun \ˈlȯ-yər, ˈlȯi-ər\
Definition of LAWYER
: one whose profession is to RATIONALLY conduct lawsuits for clients or to RATIONALLY advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters

Didn't change anything, did it?

Actually, yes, it does. Lawyers are not required to be rational. They are only required to be persuasive.

Again, anecdotes ARE evidence.

No, they're not. You still haven't even begun to support this assertion. Repetition does not equal truth.

Reread what I said:

An anecdotal account of a veridical OBE /= a veridical OBE.

Since anecdotes are evidence, I provided evidence of a veridical OBE.

No, you didn't. You provided an anecdote, which is not evidence.

But this is just a semantics game now

No, it isn't. You haven't even begun to support your contention that anecdotes are evidence. You have shown that you are using a definition of "evidence" which has absolutely no basis in reality, and that you don't understand that the courtroom system is not perfectly rational, but nothing more than that.

and you're not a very good player

Really now? You're down to flat-out insults? You might at least try to maintain an appearance of dignity. It's painfully obvious what you're doing here.

 

[Malerin]

Oh brother.

You are saying that if it impossible to assert the logical impossibility of a relation between to undefined terms then the relation between the two undefined terms is logically possible?

Yes, what else would it be? If you can't assert the impossibility of two undefined terms, you're left with two alternatives:
1. You can't assert anything about the relationship between undefined terms
2. Relationships between undefined terms are possibly true

I'm not qualified to say which one is correct, although I lean towards (2). We're going to get into terms like "possibly impossible" and it's been a long time since I studied modal logic.

 

[Robin]

If that's how you define "Zebra". Since we define zerbra as something other than "Giraffa camelopardalis" Zebras can't be giraffes.

But it is nevertheless logically consistent. Just not logically consistent with the proposition "Zebras are not Giraffa camelopardalis".

So not all logically consistent propositions are possible.

Not all logically consistent propositions are true.

It is one of the first things you learn about logic.

It is possible to talk the utterest nonsense in flawless syllogisms.

 

[Sledge]

Let me see if I've got this straight: AkuManiMani has a story (made up or real seems irrelevant at this point). He has refused to offer sufficient details to allow any real analysis of it to be made. After repeatedly being asked to provide details of his claim or back down, he is now saying that the whole thing was a trap to lure out "pretentious ass-hats." Said ass-hats are not interested in a "real discussion." There are a few points I feel this raises.

1) This is surely violating rule 11? The purpose of this thread was to discuss chaos magic, not provide a platform for AkuManiMani to play pointless little games. Keep in mind, this isn't an accidental derail, or a couple of people playing with a joke that's cropped up in the discussion. According to Aku, he deliberately set out to "trap" people. Not really sure how that fits into rule 0 either.
2) Rule 12. Rather than addressing the points people have made, Aku is attacking the people making those points.
3) "Pretentious" seems to have been redefined to mean "people who won't blindly accept my claims." Does anyone have a copy of this new dictionary?
5) What happened to 4?
4) Ah, here it is: as already pointed out, the constant "I know you are but what am I?" responses. Wow. For all the idiocy we've seen come and go with people, it's still rare to see such childishness being used as a debating tactic. Bad show, Aku. Bad show.

 

[Robin]

Yes, what else would it be? If you can't assert the impossibility of two undefined terms, you're left with two alternatives:
1. You can't assert anything about the relationship between undefined terms
2. Relationships between undefined terms are possibly true

3. You can say anything you like about the relationship - it is entirely arbitrary.

You can decide that a Fleem is a sort of Quirg or you can decide that Fleemness is the property of non-Quirgness.

All logic does is to demonstrate the truth of a conclusion on the basis of the truth of the premisses or axioms and definitions (and the soundness of the system of logic you are using).

 

[Malerin]

A different statement entirely.

If X is possibly true, then it is necessarily true that X is possibly true. Otherwise you would have a possible world where X is not possibly true.

ETA: For example, if it's possible that p, then it's necessarily possible that p.
http://www.fact-index.com/m/mo/modal_logic.html

 

[Malerin]

But it is nevertheless logically consistent.

Until the terms are defined.

Just not logically consistent with the proposition "Zebras are not Giraffa camelopardalis".

Right.

So not all logically consistent propositions are possible.

Give an example of a logically consistent impossible proposition.

Not all logically consistent propositions are true.

Certainly.

It is one of the first things you learn about logic.

It is possible to talk the utterest nonsense in flawless syllogisms.

Of course, as long as the "nonsense" isn't logically contradictory.

 

[devnull]

I havent been following the thread.

Is all this blather another attempt to dodge the burden of proof?

 

[Robin]

Until the terms are defined.

It is logically consistent full stop.

Even when the terms are defined.

Give an example of a logically consistent impossible proposition.

I just did.

X is a giraffe iff X is Giraffa camelopardalis.
All zebras are Giraffa camelopardalis
therefore all zebra are giraffes

Of course, as long as the "nonsense" isn't logically contradictory.

"Flawless syllogisms' implies "not logically contradictory".

 

[Robin]

I havent been following the thread.

Is all this blather another attempt to dodge the burden of proof?

Possiby

 

[devnull]

Possiby

What, kind of like "I managed to talk in circles longer, therefore God"???

 

[Robin]

Here is your original claim:

Then how can you assert the logical possibility of a relation between two undefined terms?

Good question. I would say because it's impossible to assert the logical impossibility of a relation between two undefined terms.

Now you have changed it to:

If X is possibly true, then it is necessarily true that X is possibly true. Otherwise you would have a possible world where X is not possibly true.

Which is a different statement entirely.

Unless you are claiming that:

it's impossible to assert the logical impossibility X​

is equivalent to:

X is possibly true​

in which case you are just assuming your conclusion.

 

[Nonpareil]

I havent been following the thread.

Is all this blather another attempt to dodge the burden of proof?

Kind of. On Aku's part, yes, arguably. On Malerin's part, it's an attempt to redefine "evidence" to admit anecdotes.

 

[devnull]

it's an attempt to redefine "evidence" to admit anecdotes.

potayto, potahto

 

[Robin]

What, kind of like "I managed to talk in circles longer, therefore God"???

You would be surprised at how effective it can be.

Here is a post from an atheist asking if he should consider believing in God because he got scared by a bunch of logic symbols:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1992

 

[Malerin]

It is logically consistent full stop.

Even when the terms are defined.

I just did.

X is a giraffe iff X is Giraffa camelopardalis.
All zebras are Giraffa camelopardalis
therefore all zebra are giraffes
"Flawless syllogisms' implies "not logically contradictory".

That's not logically consistent. The terms are well-defined. You're omitting a crucial step:

X is a giraffe iff X is Giraffa camelopardalis.
No Zebras are Giraffa camelopardalis
All zebras are Giraffa camelopardalis
therefore all zebra are giraffes