Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18

# Fundamental problems with many-valued logic

 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PMPosted: 3 years agoThe problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not.
 Posts: 22 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/9/2015 6:55:32 PMPosted: 3 years agoMany-valued logic is not saying that both or either sides are "somewhat true," but that they are unknown or the information is inadequate to be sure.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/9/2015 7:23:45 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/9/2015 6:55:32 PM, neoryan1 wrote:Many-valued logic is not saying that both or either sides are "somewhat true," but that they are unknown or the information is inadequate to be sure.That is, itself, another 2VL statement.
 Posts: 22 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/9/2015 8:14:57 PMPosted: 3 years agoHow so?
 Posts: 2,319 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/10/2015 1:33:45 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not.You are making statements about many-valued logic not in many-valued logic. Moreover "p has the truth value 1/2" is true realy adds nothing to it, just like "p is true" is true adds nothing to it.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/10/2015 1:44:03 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/10/2015 1:33:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:At 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not.You are making statements about many-valued logic not in many-valued logic.Many-valued logic is necessarily expressed in terms of two-valued logic, so I don't see your point.Moreover "p has the truth value 1/2" is true realy adds nothing to it, just like "p is true" is true adds nothing to it.That's incorrect. The statement "p is true" can be true or false, so the fact that it is true would be informational.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/10/2015 1:45:16 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/9/2015 8:14:57 PM, neoryan1 wrote:How so?You are arguing that it is true (as opposed to false) that we do not have enough information to answer the question.
 Posts: 2,319 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/10/2015 2:01:58 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/10/2015 1:44:03 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 5/10/2015 1:33:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:At 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not.You are making statements about many-valued logic not in many-valued logic.Many-valued logic is necessarily expressed in terms of two-valued logic, so I don't see your point.The whole point of many-valued logic is to not be restricted to only 2 truth values, but a truth degree.Moreover "p has the truth value 1/2" is true realy adds nothing to it, just like "p is true" is true adds nothing to it.That's incorrect. The statement "p is true" can be true or false, so the fact that it is true would be informational.Then let p be a tautology.
 Posts: 4,199 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/10/2015 11:44:24 AMPosted: 3 years agoI love you so much. A is a.: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote: : Bossy: You are Regina. :Inferno wrote: :You sound rather gay. -- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. "I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer, because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/10/2015 8:14:33 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/10/2015 2:01:58 AM, Fkkize wrote:At 5/10/2015 1:44:03 AM, dylancatlow wrote:At 5/10/2015 1:33:45 AM, Fkkize wrote:At 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not.You are making statements about many-valued logic not in many-valued logic.Many-valued logic is necessarily expressed in terms of two-valued logic, so I don't see your point.The whole point of many-valued logic is to not be restricted to only 2 truth values, but a truth degree.And that assertion obviously takes advantage of 2VL insofar as it makes absolute (yes or no) pronouncements. Just because you claim your formulation of logic is not restricted to 2 truth values doesn't mean you aren't lying.Moreover "p has the truth value 1/2" is true realy adds nothing to it, just like "p is true" is true adds nothing to it.That's incorrect. The statement "p is true" can be true or false, so the fact that it is true would be informational.Then let p be a tautology.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/10/2015 8:20:05 PMPosted: 3 years agoIn other words, all statements of fact reduce to the form X is true, the negation of X is false. If they don't, then they're not actually claiming anything, and the person asserting it might as well not speak.
 Posts: 3,368 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 12:35:01 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or notIf something is either true or false, meaning that which is true cannot be false and that which is false cannot be true, then, truth is simply and exclusively universal.A truth that is absolutely true, meaning independent of one's perspective, is an unknowable truth, being all limited sentient beings by necessity define the truth using the mechanisms of perception.You may say one may blindly know the truth, in other words know the absolute truth without the capacity to know absolutely. In order for one to know the absolute truth, being a truth that is not hedged in, or defined by partiality, he, or she, must be impartial in his, or her, comprehension of it. Being impartial, one must ascertain it fairly and without prejudice, having no bias or preference towards it. In other words, one must know, indiscriminately, it is the absolute truth and knowing it is the absolute truth must be objective and impartial in his, or her, understanding.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 1:15:29 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/15/2015 12:35:01 AM, s-anthony wrote:At 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or notA truth that is absolutely true, meaning independent of one's perspective, is an unknowable truth, being all limited sentient beings by necessity define the truth using the mechanisms of perception.Absolute truth is not defined as "truth independent of one's perspective", it's defined as truth that is true universally i.e., a statement whose implications apply to all of reality. Since our perspective is obviously part of reality, absolute truth is not "independent" of our perspective - it merely extends beyond it. Since absolute truth applies to every aspect of reality absolutely, it is implicit in every aspect of reality. To perceive one and the same reality, human beings need a kind of "absolute knowledge" wired into their minds.
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 1:58:29 AMPosted: 3 years agoAnother way to explain it is this:All meaningful theories aim at truth, and truth just means "what reality is". So all meaningful theories assert that reality is a certain way. Therefore, all meaningful theories imply that reality assumes a consistent form stable enough to be described in a specific way. Thus, many-valued logic requires two-valued logic in order to be true.
 Posts: 3,368 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/15/2015 9:04:01 AMPosted: 3 years agoAbsolute truth is not defined as "truth independent of one's perspective", it's defined as truth that is true universally i.e., a statement whose implications apply to all of reality. Since our perspective is obviously part of reality, absolute truth is not "independent" of our perspective - it merely extends beyond it. Since absolute truth applies to every aspect of reality absolutely, it is implicit in every aspect of reality. To perceive one and the same reality, human beings need a kind of "absolute knowledge" wired into their minds.Being true universally and not independent of one's perspective, would it be permissible to say absolute truth and one's perspective were necessarily agreeable?
 Posts: 88 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/20/2015 1:15:22 AMPosted: 3 years agoI would say Thats Its not really Logic. 2 value logic is just that 2 Perspectives on one point. Its a part of logical thinking but there nothing 2 it.. Because it cannot be determined one way or another , its rather just a Open ended statement
 Posts: 4,199 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/21/2015 5:07:52 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not.I'm bumping this thread because I'm sick and tired of hearing people trying to justify many-valued logic. It's literally the most ridiculous thing ever and it takes about five seconds of thought to disprove it.Spurred by this Reddit thread (WARNING: IDIOTS WITHIN):http://www.reddit.com...: At 10/2/2017 3:00:43 AM, YYW wrote: : Bossy: You are Regina. :Inferno wrote: :You sound rather gay. -- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. "I believe that my powers of mind are surely such that I would have become in a certain sense a resolver of all problems. I do not believe that I could have remained in error anywhere for long. I believe that I would have earned the name of Redeemer, because I had the nature of a Redeemer. "
 Posts: 13,774 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 5/21/2015 5:18:20 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 5/21/2015 5:07:52 AM, ShabShoral wrote:At 5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM, dylancatlow wrote:The problem with any formulation of logic other than two-valued logic is that it necessarily devolves to two-valued logic. First, such a formulation either is distinguishable (logically distinct) from two-valued logic, or it is not. If one wants to claim that neither of these choices capture the truth of the matter, then one is simply making another two-valued judgement i.e., that, in fact, it is neither distinct nor identical, but something else (whatever that means). Second, either many-valued logic is true or it is not. One cannot say that it is "somewhat" true without invoking yet another two-valued statement, namely that many-valued logic IS somewhat true as opposed to true/false. All statements of fact use 2VL whether they explicitly acknowledge it or not.I'm bumping this thread because I'm sick and tired of hearing people trying to justify many-valued logic. It's literally the most ridiculous thing ever and it takes about five seconds of thought to disprove it.Spurred by this Reddit thread (WARNING: IDIOTS WITHIN):http://www.reddit.com...It's kind of bizarre just how bad the vast majority of people are at philosophy. And that goes even for "philosophers".