3 ms·

They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "a

by Latty 8y ago

They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic. "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.

majewsky 8y ago
It absolutely is Boolean logic, if you know how to write it down: Definition 1 = Belief(not god) Definition 2 = not Belief(god)
- candiodari 8y ago
  Even for the most basic of logic positions this is now considered outright false. Here are all the possible answers for Boolean predicate: 1) true 2) false 3) independent and, sort of, 4) unknown In a parallel dimension (using the true mathematical meaning of the word dimension here) there is also, about every predicate: 1) it is theoretically possible to know 2) it is theoretically impossible to know 3) it is impossible to know if it is theoretically possible to know (thanks a LOT, Godel) Note that in the case where it is impossible to know, there still exists an answer. There is just some reason we won't ever know the answer. If this is relevant, then of course the practical answer to your Boolean predicate is "unknown". In some cases it may be useful to pretend we know the answer, and expand math as if we know the answer. So yes, we even have claims that we consider "true, yet impossible to know". What that means is that we add a fact we can't prove or even prove as non-problematic as an axiom (e.g. the existence of large cardinal numbers. And of course, an honest mathematician would say that since the first 3 large cardinal number axioms were proven to be disasters, odds seem pretty good the current one is a catastrophe in some currently unknown way as well. But maybe we got lucky this time) And in yet ANOTHER dimension you have the rather important fact: 1) it is practically possible to know 2) it is not practically possible to know Here answer 2 is pretty nice, because that provides an argument, a useful dimension where we could research into expanding our practical options to practice science. Or perhaps I should say, it gives us a very practical reason to try to make one particular expansion of our knowledge. A LOT of claims in quantum physics fall into the 2) category and there's lots of research into finding the answers anyway. And sometimes a kindergarten teacher in Italy thinks of a way to ... So this means there are 12 possible answers to every predicate in maths. 3 basic ones. And there are many fun things that can be said about every independent claim, because then of course that predicate becomes an argument to change maths to change the answer.. So where does a claim about God fall ?
- Latty 8y ago
  The point stands no matter how you write it - those two things are not equivalent. Case in point, an agnostic fits one of those, but not the other. An agnostic does not believe in a god, but they also don't believe in "not god". If those two things are equivalent, then "not Belief(god)" and "not Belief(not god)" couldn't both be true (as they are for agnostics). The issue is not that you need to find a way to frame it as boolean logic, the issue is that we don't believe in boolean logic. Belief has more than two states. Of course, this is all a side track because the central point remains: believing there is no god does not require disregarding the possibility of being wrong any more than believing in anything does. It simply means you think it is the most reasonable belief given what you know at that time, as with any belief.

by Latty 8y ago

majewsky 8y ago

It absolutely is Boolean logic, if you know how to write it down: Definition 1 = Belief(not god) Definition 2 = not Belief(god)

candiodari 8y ago
Even for the most basic of logic positions this is now considered outright false. Here are all the possible answers for Boolean predicate: 1) true 2) false 3) independent and, sort of, 4) unknown In a parallel dimension (using the true mathematical meaning of the word dimension here) there is also, about every predicate: 1) it is theoretically possible to know 2) it is theoretically impossible to know 3) it is impossible to know if it is theoretically possible to know (thanks a LOT, Godel) Note that in the case where it is impossible to know, there still exists an answer. There is just some reason we won't ever know the answer. If this is relevant, then of course the practical answer to your Boolean predicate is "unknown". In some cases it may be useful to pretend we know the answer, and expand math as if we know the answer. So yes, we even have claims that we consider "true, yet impossible to know". What that means is that we add a fact we can't prove or even prove as non-problematic as an axiom (e.g. the existence of large cardinal numbers. And of course, an honest mathematician would say that since the first 3 large cardinal number axioms were proven to be disasters, odds seem pretty good the current one is a catastrophe in some currently unknown way as well. But maybe we got lucky this time) And in yet ANOTHER dimension you have the rather important fact: 1) it is practically possible to know 2) it is not practically possible to know Here answer 2 is pretty nice, because that provides an argument, a useful dimension where we could research into expanding our practical options to practice science. Or perhaps I should say, it gives us a very practical reason to try to make one particular expansion of our knowledge. A LOT of claims in quantum physics fall into the 2) category and there's lots of research into finding the answers anyway. And sometimes a kindergarten teacher in Italy thinks of a way to ... So this means there are 12 possible answers to every predicate in maths. 3 basic ones. And there are many fun things that can be said about every independent claim, because then of course that predicate becomes an argument to change maths to change the answer.. So where does a claim about God fall ?
Latty 8y ago
The point stands no matter how you write it - those two things are not equivalent. Case in point, an agnostic fits one of those, but not the other. An agnostic does not believe in a god, but they also don't believe in "not god". If those two things are equivalent, then "not Belief(god)" and "not Belief(not god)" couldn't both be true (as they are for agnostics). The issue is not that you need to find a way to frame it as boolean logic, the issue is that we don't believe in boolean logic. Belief has more than two states. Of course, this is all a side track because the central point remains: believing there is no god does not require disregarding the possibility of being wrong any more than believing in anything does. It simply means you think it is the most reasonable belief given what you know at that time, as with any belief.