Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Fundamental problems with many-valued logic

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:33:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.
neoryan1
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 6:55:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2015 7:23:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 1:33:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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. 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.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 1:44:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.

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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 1:45:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 2:01:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.

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.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 11:44:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I love you so much. A is a.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 8:14:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/10/2015 8:20:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
In 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.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 12:35:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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

If 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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 1:15:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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 not


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.


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.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 1:58:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Another 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.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2015 9:04:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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.

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?
VietTurtle
Posts: 88
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2015 1:15:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I 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
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 5:07:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
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...
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2015 5:18:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 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".