| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Comments:
<0> for instance, the language of physics, mathematics, biology etc.
<1> thanks raf :)
<2> what this is jagger thing and he ays he's trom texas @Ottawa-HSE-ppp256381.sympatico.ca
<3> you're welcome.
<0> Things are only correct or incorrect in reference to a language.
<2> now that you got caught why not tel the truth
<0> for instance, without referring to mathematics, 2+2 = 7 is perfectly sensible.
<0> Truth only makes sense in reference to a language that possesses a certain set of rules.
<0> this is why religous debates have no concrete resolution, they are not debating facts of the matter but langauges
<1> 2+2=4 go back to school. your first grade teacher is calling. retake the test
<2> ok now i am starting to understand why phan don't like you
<4> #sygatesnew channel imcomplet
<0> no, BNLFan, you are absolutely right.
<5> BNLFan
<0> But that's insofar as 2+2=4 is a mathematical statement.
<0> a statement of mathematics.
<1> hey foxxie :)
<5> how you?
<5> lol
<2> lol
<1> not as well as id hoped ill talk more later
<0> Do you see what I mean though?
<5> kk hun
<5> hey BNLFan would you like me to send you that poem i wrote
<5> seein that you liked it!
<6> Actually even when you're thinking of mathmatics its possible for 2+2 to equal 5
<1> sure
<5> kewl
<6> You're just not dealing with rational numbers then
<5> can i pm ya n get ur addy?
<1> sure
<5> fankies :)
<0> Cool.
<0> I actually did not know that.
<0> I have not taken a math course in some time.
<1> sure i would like to see where you're coming from jaggar, but i cant get my head that far up my butt.
<5> lol BNLFan
<5> lmao
<2> lmao
<0> It really isn't that complicated, its just a matter of examining our methods of analysis.
<0> What makes something true or false?
<1> analysis or ANAl?
<5> lol
<0> the ladder would hardly be coherent.
<1> im coherent, im aware of what im saying, but the tricky ****y is are you?
<0> coherent in the framework I was speaking of.
<1> framework? are you building a house now?
<0> For instance, what type of knowledge is it that 'some black dogs are black' as opposed to knowledge that 'all black dogs are black'
<0> is there a difference in KINDS of knowledge there?
<7> hello BNLFan
<0> that was supposed to be "some dogs are black" as opposed to "all black dogs are black"
<1> hi
<0> My mistake.
<7> how are you sis?
<7> lmao
<0> one is true with reference to dogs existing in the world. The other seems to be true as a matter of conceptual necessity.
<0> But what do YOU think?
<0> are they different sorts of knowledge - or are they the same?
<0> is there a distinction?
<6> the latter Jaggar
<6> not ladder
<6> heh
<0> Right again.
<0> How come?
<0> ( I mean in reference to the latter/ladder bit )
<0> But why do you think that?
<6> cuz... that's how it's spelled when you're referring to the second of two statements. Ladder is something you climb to get high places
<6> former and latter
<0> hahaha
<0> No, no, I acknowledge the typo - I mean as to why you think there's no distinction.
<0> - why you think they're the same sort of knowledge?
<6> there is a distinction however I can't remember the names of the types of statements they are
<0> Analytic / Synthetic
<0> Carnap thought there was, Quine thought there wasn't. I am undecided.
<6> first of all the second is redundant and there fore you have to take out one of the blacks for it to be a proper sentance
<0> No, the "all black dogs are black" refers to the notion of self-identity
<0> x = x
<0> So it is true regardless of reference to objects in the world
<6> see but it doesn't make for a true comparison
<0> It is tautologous; it has to be true.
<0> Interesting, go on.
<6> "All dogs are black" Vs. "Some dogs are black" makes for a more interesting analogy
<5> Roxy`
<5> hugz
<8> hi
<2> hello roxy
<5> how are you?
<0> Well there is a difference there because it isn't two seperate types of knowledge
<6> For example if a person were to wake up one day after being cloned and they have full language capacity but no knowledge of the real world and they were exposed to a number of dogs all of them being black it would be quite natural for him to infer that 'All dogs are black' yet this isn't true
<0> Both those are used in reference to objects that are existent in the world.
<6> now the same can be applied to mathmatics
<0> how so?>
<8> fine
<6> 2+2=4 is only true because you think of them as real things. two coconuts plus two coconuts is four coconuts. But what if you have something more like a jelly? One jar of jelly plus another jar of jelly can be one big jar of jelly
<5> thats good
<5> :)
<0> There you have it, that is exactly what I mean.
<6> yes but I can articulate
<0> They are used in reference to existent objects in the world, but they eerily possess a certain set of truths in and of themselves.
<9> oh my Red!
<9> what's a welcome
<0> They adhere to a set of values or rules that are true independently of the content of the world.
<0> that's also the case with "all black dogs are black"
<0> but not the case with "some dogs are black"
<6> well its the truth that there is no such thing as a 'Law of Science" they're all theorums at best
<6> no because all black dogs are black is redundant and therefore not worth saying.
<6> it's like saying two is... two... it's you know... two
<10> Is there anyone in here who doesnt have an ego.
<6> anything for you Thetis
<11> apart from you snowing >
<11> ?
<10> Are you stalking me?
<11> for now i am
<6> ^Suzie^ doesn't have an ego
<10> I left you ****ing channel isnt that enough?
<7> i stole it.
<10> Oh be nice sorry.
<0> well its just the notion of self identity: x = x, 1 = 1. It just has to hold out of necessity. As to the value that the statement contributes, Im not going to say anything one way or the other. But the statement is undeniably true.
<0> Regardless of the way the world is.
<0> That's all I'm asking you to grant./
<6> I disagree
<0> Why so?
<10> !seen albicocca
<12> i love some one
<12> y
<10> Bugger.
<12> what
<11> meh
<6> because in higher mathmatics its quite equal for x=y and y=z but z?x
<13> hi
<14> hi Ammey! please dont /msg people you dont know. We prefer to talk here in the channel.
<6> that's a 'does not equal sign'
<6> that irc apparently can't read
<10> Dont worry was just searching for someone i can relate to on an even level who is a drunk or a raving idiot.
<6> equal=possible
<0> yes, but for that to make sense, x would have to be equal to x, wouldn't it?
<11> Snowing .. whats up ?
<7> eh Ammey? please dont /msg people you dont know. We prefer to talk here in the channel.
<6> no because if x equals y and y equals z but x does not equal z you can infer the x does not equal x
<7> bah, my thoughts exactly.
<6> It's also possible for two parralel lines to intersect
<15> #STEAUA_DA_MUIE_LUI_RAPID
<5> it is??
<6> yep
<5> fayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
<0> but in that case, where x does not equal x, the statement is nonsensical - because anything follows from a variable that does not equal itself.
Return to
#beginner
or
Go to some related
logs:
#gamedev
enable autorejoin mirc
chatzonw
Klose's fart
#linux-noob
eterm packages suse 10
overclocking database for Prescott 3.0E socket 478
youtube technology javascript
#flash
#windowsxp
|
|