Dr. Kitten,
Wonderful! I requested you come to the table with some critical arguments! Let's have a look and learn...
Your entire theory rests on a mistaken understanding of the basic epistemology of the world and of the logical process itself.
that's an assumption, not an argument. It's closer to opinion, and further from fact.
As JonnyFive has been patiently pointing out, nothing that you have been claiming to do is especially new.
The 'newness' of what I do is irrelevant to the argument. It doesnt matter if it was created last year or 2000 years ago. That's not only a non sequitor, it's also a misrepresentation of OS 0 1 2 and jonny and myself's argument.
Karnaugh had formalized a version of trivalent logic in the fifties, and of course, Godel had refined a different version in the 20s. There's nothing either new or interesting in the idea of trivalent logic.
well, the 'interesting' is up to the person. If you dont find thinking interesting, then that's your problem, not an argument!
However, your suggestion of a trivalent logic where "subjective truth" is equated to "objective falsity" (as you proposed in post #30) is illogical and incoherent. it does not accurately describe the universe.
You're critique does not accuratly describe my argument!
i said the 2 value is 'False relative to the first value, and incorrect when inappropiatly determined to be an objective truth. Individually experienced.'
It doesnt describe the universe, it describes the 'experience' of the universe!
C'mon Dr. Kitten, catch up a bit, eh? Nothing I have posted is contradictory to these values.
Furthermore, your assumption that statements can be classified as "true," "false" or "mysterious" is also incorrect, since a statement to which you do not know the answer may nevertheless be known true/false to another observer.
so? Take the statement 'God exists as the embodiment of Jesus Christ'.
To a believer, that's a true statement
To a skeptic, that's a false statement.
to a logician, that could be a tautologically true statement.
to a agnostic, that could be an unknown statement.
Points of view are 'relative' doc kitten. Ever hear of relativity? now apply that to points of view instead of universal objects, and please, catch up a bit, these counters you're addressing are really old defeated arguments.
OS 0 1 2 is a logic that is refrential to the self. It does not evalutate statements on thier own, it evaluates statements relative to the point of view making them.
Do I have to write that 25 more times before you consider it?
The truth of the statement "I have an ace in the hole" is known to me, but not to anyone else at the poker table -- and therefore it is neither "true" nor "mysterious," breaking your trichotomy.
no, it's unknown 'what you meant' to everyone you mentioned. Sheesh, is this the best you can do?
snore. I thought you were smart and would be able to give me some well thought through critiques.
Furthermore, your assessment that statements that are not known to be true or false must thus be identically "mysteriouis" reflects a deep misunderstanding of the state of the world and of the nature of evidence.
Any statement regarding death, as in 'what happens after, or the experience the moment of', cannot be verified for any degree of certainty other than 'unknown', except to the person dying!
There are many statements whose truth/falsity cannot be proven but that can nevertheless be assessed, and if necessary acted upon. Steorn's technology provides a good example. Although I cannot prove that Steorn is fraudulent, I can prove that there is no independent evidence that they are not fraudulent, that there is ample independent evidence that their claim is impossible, ample independent evidence that they know its impossible (because anyone with a sixth grade understanding of science knows that), and that they are therefore fraudulent.
oh my god, are you actually using the same argument structure as believers????
First off, the evidence of steorn as a company is available for anyone to see. If they are fraudulent, there would be public record claims accusing them of such and then court actions. There is'nt those, rather, they have a respectable track record as a company that DEALS IN ANTI FRAUD technology.
Are you going to get paranoid and assume that's just a slick cover??
My analogy of Tinkerbell was and is exact. We cannot prove the nonexistence of Tinkerbell, but there is enough evidence of her nonexistence that it would be perverse and irrational to continue to believe in the possibility of her existence.
huh??? We can PROVE the existence of tinkerbell as an imaginary character in disney movies and peter pan stories. Have you and JQH been drinking again?
And there is still more[/]i evidence to believe that Steorn are acting fraudulently.
but before you said
I cannot prove that Steorn is fraudulent
isnt that contradictory? How can there be further evidence of Steorn's fraud if you cannot prove they are fraudulent?
THAT'S A CONTRADICTION in TRUTH VALUES.
In terms of probability theory, the probability that Tinkerbell exists is demonstrably much greater than the probabiilty that Steorn's technology does -- because Tinkerbell, at least, does not violate every thermodynamic experiment that has ever been done.
tinkerbell most certainly exists as an imaginary creature. Steorn's claim to have something that they are proving with the scientific method is no where similar.
So if you really want a logic that formalizes properties of the unknown -- well, logicians have been working on real-number based "fuzzy logic" (where uncertain propositions are described in numbers representing their degree of support and/or certainty, between 0 and 1) for literally decades. Again, there's nothing new there, except the fact that they are capable of correctly describing the difference between the possible and the extremely unlikely to the point of rejection.
without including the truth value of the person making the claim. Please pay attention to the argument if you are going to offer a critique.
And I point out, in particular, that OS012 is "poop."
Okay, that's an equivocation. It's using ad hom to 'mean' that OS 012 is FALSE.
And if it is, you surely have to demonstrate that it is, not demonstrate the false idea you have about it!
There is a rather old and famous book review. The reviewer pointed out "this book is both original and informative. Unfortunately, the part that is original is not informative, and the part that is informative is not original."
hehe, there is nothing new about that critique!
That's a quite accurate description of everything you've said about OS012. The part that is useful and informative -- trivalent logic -- is not original; logicians have been using it for decades and have gone far beyond the applications you propose. The part that is original in your thinking is not just uninformative, but actively incorrect when it rises to the level of meaningful.
that's a misinformed opinion. You are being intellectually dishonest when you mistreat information.
and who is going to now argue that the third value is meaningless and non existant with a statement like that from the good doctor, eh?
BF
