13 ms·
Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)
- visiblink 6y agoTHAT would have been interesting....
- p1mrx 6y agoWhy does this site open Wikipedia when I double-click?
- mikepurvis 6y agoPresumably because of the JavaScript implementing that behaviour in the footer, charmingly pasted in from one of those JavaScript library sites and even still including the original credit: <!-- Original: Nick Simonov (nicks@iln.net) --> <!-- Web Site: http://www.iln.net --> <!-- This script and many more are available free online at --> <!-- The JavaScript Source!! http://javascript.internet.com -->
- thunderbong 6y agoNeither of those sites seem to be available though. The code below that comment is - var NS = (navigator.appName == "Netscape") ? 1 : 0; if (NS) document.captureEvents(Event.DBLCLICK); document.ondblclick = dict; var newwin; function dict() { if (NS) { t = document.getSelection(); opennewwin(t); } else { t = document.selection.createRange(); if(document.selection.type == 'Text' && t.text != '') { document.selection.empty(); opennewwin(t.text); } } } function opennewwin(text) { if (text > '') { newwin = window.open('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search='+text, 's&go=Go'); setTimeout('newwin.focus()', 100); } }
- mikepurvis 6y agoWell yes, I assumed that anyone interested in the actual implementation could go view-source it for themselves. Obviously this was cut-and-pasted into this website's generic footer many, many moons ago, and the fact that it remains long after the original source is gone is part of the charm.
- repsilat 6y agoA more traditional argument might look something like Axiom 1: ((1=0 && 1!=0) -> Pope(Russell) Proposed axiom 2: (1=0 && 1!=0) 1&2 modus ponens: Pope(Russell)
- jimmyed 6y agoIs this standard DSL for formal logic? What's it called?
- jumboshrimp 6y agoIf I’m understanding your question correctly, this is symbolic logic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_logic_symbols
- repsilat 6y agoNot at all standard I'm afraid. "Modus ponens" is a common term to describe inferring B from A->B and A, but that's about as far as I'd be willing to say it resembles any common notation for formal logic.
- sinsterizme 6y agoCan you explain why Axiom 1 is an axiom? I don't understand this
- repsilat 6y agoI mostly just figured it was plausible-looking. The axiom-scheme could be "(X && !X) -> Y" for any expressions X and Y. Basically a partial definition of logical implication. The expression LHS->RHS is true when LHS is false, so it should at least be a theorem when the LHS is a contradition, and maybe an axiom depending on your taste. I suspect common taste is for small sets of axioms that don't tend to include this statement/scheme though. Using the rules of inference from here[1], plus an assumed starting point for arithmetic, another deduction might be 1. Proposed axiom: (1==0) 2. Maybe some arithmetic axiom, humour me: !(1==0) 3. 2, negation elimination: (1==0) -> Pope(Russell) 4. 1, 3 modus ponens: Pope(Russell). That "negation elimination" rule of inference looks kinda like what I did earlier I guess, but less questionable. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus#Example_2._Natural_deduction_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_calculus#Example...
- hprotagonist 6y agoPope? Perhaps not. Cardinal in pectore? No one could know! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_pectore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_pectore
- ornxka 6y agoThank you for posting this, I will now forever wonder who, if any, of the people I meet throughout my life will have been secret cardinals. The answer is almost certainly "none at all", but you're right, how would I know!
- hprotagonist 6y ago> who, if any, of the people I meet throughout my life including yourself!
- de6u99er 6y agoYou can add infinite to both sides, then you end up with: infinite + 1 = infinite
- fctorial 6y ago> You can add infinite to both sides No you can't, it's illegal.
- IncRnd 6y agoWhere is that law written?
- fctorial 6y agoIt's an illegal operation
- exmadscientist 6y ago"Infinity plus one" is completely legal and well-defined in multiple mathematical formalisms [0], not least of which (and my personal favorite) are the surreal numbers [1]. [0] https://blog.plover.com/math/infinity-for-kids.html https://blog.plover.com/math/infinity-for-kids.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number#Transfinite_induction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number#Transfinite_ind...
- fctorial 6y agoI meant adding infinity to both sides
- exmadscientist 6y agoWorking in the surreal numbers, you can, in fact, add "infinity" (specifically, the one usually called ω) to both sides of an equation, and everything is rigorously defined and works correctly.
- baoqdau 6y agoI love Bertrand Russell man. His essays are so beautifully written. In praise of idleness is a banger. The conquest of happiness is a joy to read. His writings are so clear. The way he elucidates his thought process is sublime. What a cool guy.
- kevinwang 6y agoif only principia mathematica could have been as clear :P
- agumonkey 6y agoso that's how you do ? you put all the cryptic complexity in one book and pour the rest in your poetry compilation ..
- nabla9 6y agoHe is so famous of his other achievements that people are frequently surprised to learn that he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature (1950). His writing is clear and his thinking is clear.
- vincent-manis 6y agoBy the same reasoning, assuming that 1=0, I too am the Pope, and I am therefore also Bertrand Russell.
- bori5 6y agoHence “a false proposition implies any proposition“ ... and around we go.
- gnramires 6y agoThe principle of explosion! To me, no greater proof of the existence of truth and the value of truth, and the concept of truth. If you think "Well, maybe this truth thing isn't really necessary, things are all absurd anyways, isn't everything just an arbitrary construct?" Well, assume me a falsehood and I will explode your world.
- Y_Y 6y agoCould you give a definition of this "truth"?
- chmod600 6y agoQuotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
- malwarebytess 6y agoThis is from, at least partially, "Free Thought and Official Propaganda." https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html
- cnasc 6y agoI remember one of my high school theology teachers had a placard placed above the wall with a Russell quote: > most people would die sooner than think—in fact, they do so
- macawfish 6y agoThere's something about the cardinality of that set
- chris_wot 6y agoThis is funny, but I will forever love Russell’s Paradox better.
- thisrod 6y agoIn the version I heard, Russel says: "I am one, the pope is one, therefore the pope and I are one." I doubt he ever said that, but it sounds like him.
- llaolleh 6y agoI love Bertrand Russell's writing style. His piece on writing is a must read:http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/howWrite.htm http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/how... He translates this: "Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or environmental, chanced to combine in producing an individual in whom many factors deviate from the norm in a socially advantageous manner" Into this: "All men are scoundrels, or at any rate almost all. The men who are not must have had unusual luck, both in their birth and in their upbringing."
- raffraffraff 6y agoI think that philosophers like Judith Butler write impenetrable prose to sound intelligent and to make it almost impossible to argue against their positions. Anything worth saying can be said simply.
- gameswithgo 6y agoand jordan peterson. I wish I knew if it was intentional and for what reasons or if they just think that way.
- salmo 6y agoI blame Heidegger for this. I'm sure someone can cite someone previous, but that was it for me as an undergrad. It was so alluring at first. It sounds so smart, complex, and nuanced. But then it started to really kick in and I realized it was just opaque, vague, and unapproachable. My CS/Math side kicked in. Complex statements should be able to be broken down into compositions of simpler ones. You have the Descartes and Rawls of the world, that were able to distill a topic to the point any college student could understand without knowing anything about Philsophy. Kant and, even more, Spinoza weren't exactly approachable, but were able to construct their work by deeply composing simple structures. I came to agree that this artistic writing with overly complex sentence (or in Heidegger's case, compound word) structures, overuse of haughty philosophic jargon, etc. is mostly a large scale defense against argument. It becomes the gnosticism of philosophy: you think it's wrong because you just don't get it.
- DangitBobby 6y agoI don't see how the conclusion must be that he's the Pope. It containing just him and the Pope but actually only just him is a contradiction that could just as easily be resolved by saying "it contains me and the Pope but actually just me so there is no Pope." Even if I accept the false proposition, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.
- _ZeD_ 6y agoit's not that difficult to follow: let B = {set made of "Bertrand Russell" }, P = {set made of the pope} let BP = B ∪ P |B| = 1, |P| = 1 (trivials) |BP| may be 1 or 2 if |BP| = 1 it means B=P -> Bertrand Russell is the Pope if |BP| = 2, and 2=1, it means B=P -> Bertrand Russell is the Pope
- rembrandt 6y agoBut since |BP| is both 1 and 2 it means Bertrand Russell is both the Pope, and not the Pope.
- unanswered 6y ago... yes. That is indeed what is meant by ex falso quodlibet. It does not make the example invalid.
- DangitBobby 6y agoThe point was merely that it cannot be used to prove "anything" since the actual conclusions do not necessarily follow, leaving the original claim that you can prove anything with false axioms unproven.
- unanswered 6y agoThe conclusion "Bertrand Russell is the Pope" does necessarily follow from 1=0. I'm not sure why you think it doesn't. The conclusion "Bertrand Russell is not the Pope" also follows. Yes, this is a contradiction. So is 1=0.
- zholito 6y agoAny suggestion about a course or online material to be able to understand this? Would like to understand it but quite lost to be honest.