Book 2 – Page 51

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby teratorn » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:09 pm

People are confusing things. Scientific theories assume a set of postulates and a given set of equations.
They are always «true» the question being if they fit the data or not. Special relativity as a theory is always
true, since its results are derived in a consistent way from its basic premises. It may or may not be a good
approximation of reality for a given problem.

Theories are not wrong, they can be useful or useless but not wrong.

But what does this have to do with Erfworld?
User avatar
teratorn
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 6:33 am
Location: Algarve

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby HerbieRai » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:11 pm

To bring what foolamancer is saying to the above black horse statment:
"all horses are black" not logical statement because he does not know all horses in existance
"there are black horses" logical statement
I would debate on if the first is valid for philosophy, since philosophy is supposed to think of outside the box type ideas and then have science and logic to prove or disprove the idea. (at least by my definitions)

Now to bring this disscussion back to Trem, I don't think his decisions were stupid. Charlie isn't nessecarly a trustworthy person, and although we the readers know he told him the truth, Trem doesn't. Trem did draw a valid conclusion from Charlies information, that Charlie wanted Jetstone to destroy the fliers asap. Now, while Charlie is not an enemy, he is far from ally. I'm sure Trem knows about all the double crossing Charlie did in TBFGK, since those finances would be seen back in the capitol. Trem then had to decide which to deal with: Charlie, and unkown power located somewhere secret who is acting out of character (services for free), or GK, a force that he has in a bind (or so he thought) and has leverage with.
HerbieRai
 
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 1:58 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby multilis » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:18 pm

"No, he didn't. He is making a claim about all horses, not just the horses that he has seen."

Yes, and similar with sasquash, a claim of only what is *seen* in your bathroom at most a few hours a day, is extending to always true for your bathroom.

...

We do it all the time, we should expect people in erfworld to also normally expect only what they have seen. Some of the brightest thinkers in magic kingdom debate rather than test theories, and most of rest are happy to do only what is expected, eg I was born a spearman so I am happy to die a spearman as long as I use my spear once.

....

"while Charlie is not an enemy" is that known? Charlie could be more enemy than anyone else, Trem already has hints at that, Parson also has hints.

Jetstone could already sense that Hagar was enemy to degree just waiting for a chance to play vulture and kill whoever remained. They have much more evidence to not trust Charlie compared to Hagar. Charlie has already almost bankrupted Jetstone, is able to pull nukes like "Kingsworld" out of his hat of secrets, pulls nasty legal backstabs "offer they can't accept", and is apparently much stronger than Hagar. His forces are some of fastest and best at hiding, at any turn Charlie could suprise show up with overwhelming force to crush Jetstone and steal pliers now in their hex.
Last edited by multilis on Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Foolamancer » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:28 pm

teratorn wrote:People are confusing things. Scientific theories assume a set of postulates and a given set of equations.
They are always «true» the question being if they fit the data or not.


No. They are almost always sound, but not always true.

Being sound means that it is logical or reasonable to say that the conclusion follows from the premises. Being true requires both that the argument is sound and that it is valid (that its premises are true). If an argument is both valid and sound, its conclusion follows from true premises. Then, and only then, is it considered true.

But what does this have to do with Erfworld?


Dunno. I lost track of that quite some time ago. :P

I would say "I'd be happy to move this to another thread", but EWF lacks a General Discussion area.


HerbieRai wrote:To bring what foolamancer is saying to the above black horse statment:
"all horses are black" not logical statement because he does not know all horses in existance
"there are black horses" logical statement


Exactly.

I would debate on if the first is valid for philosophy, since philosophy is supposed to think of outside the box type ideas and then have science and logic to prove or disprove the idea. (at least by my definitions)


Not really. Philosophy is supposed to use logic, rather than just being a pile of random, nonsensical statements and "conclusions". Science can certainly provide evidence which overturns a philosophical idea, though.

Now to bring this disscussion back to Trem, I don't think his decisions were stupid. Charlie isn't nessecarly a trustworthy person, and although we the readers know he told him the truth, Trem doesn't. Trem did draw a valid conclusion from Charlies information, that Charlie wanted Jetstone to destroy the fliers asap. Now, while Charlie is not an enemy, he is far from ally. I'm sure Trem knows about all the double crossing Charlie did in TBFGK, since those finances would be seen back in the capitol. Trem then had to decide which to deal with: Charlie, and unkown power located somewhere secret who is acting out of character (services for free), or GK, a force that he has in a bind (or so he thought) and has leverage with.


multilis wrote:"No, he didn't. He is making a claim about all horses, not just the horses that he has seen."

Yes, and similar with sasquash, a claim of only what is *seen* in your bathroom at most a few hours a day, is extending to always true for your bathroom.


No, it isn't. You asked if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch was not in your bathroom, not if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch has never and will never be in your bathroom. The two are very different questions.
"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Foolamancer
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 am
Location: From Beale Street to Oblivion

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby multilis » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:31 pm

"No, it isn't. You asked if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch was not in your bathroom, not if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch has never and will never be in your bathroom. The two are very different questions."

No, I said prove Sasquash doesn't "live" in your bathroom. You live in your house but not always there.

The point related to erfworld is this: we should not be so critical to fault Erfworlders for not expected what they have never seen. It takes time for us humans to adapt, to think outside the box, same with them.

We as humans would say that Sasquash does not live in our bathroom even though we can't prove it. Erfworlders say that no one can do major attacking across a hex zone when not turn, even though they can't prove it because it never has been seen despite thousands of turns of war where often was life and death of entire sides.

The few great minds in erfworld that do lateral thinking/invent new ideas, keep it mostly secret. (How many turns has Charlie known of kingsworld?)
Last edited by multilis on Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Foolamancer » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:36 pm

multilis wrote:"No, it isn't. You asked if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch was not in your bathroom, not if it was possible to prove that Sasquatch has never and will never be in your bathroom. The two are very different questions."

No, I said prove Sasquash doesn't "live" in your bathroom. You live in your house but not always there.


Ah. Then I misunderstood.

Assuming that Sasquatch isn't invisible, immaterial or anything like that, it is impossible to prove that he doesn't live in your bathroom, but you can be reasonably sure that he doesn't if you detect a lack of monkey smell and piles of animal crap.

The point related to erfworld is this: we should not be so critical to fault Erfworlders for not expected what they have never seen. It takes time for us humans to adapt, to think outside the box, same with them.


And I agree with this. I even made an argument very similar to that in an early thread, when one of the interminable "Tram is holding the Idiot Ball" discussions started up.
"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Foolamancer
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 am
Location: From Beale Street to Oblivion

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby multilis » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:39 pm

"but you can be reasonably sure that he doesn't if you detect a lack of monkey smell and piles of animal crap"

Sasquash uses deoderant and knows how to use and flush a primitive device like a toilet. He comes from mars in a flying saucer, you keep thinking him a savage animal when he is more civilized then you. ;-)

(For Jetstone, seeing a major attack cross a zone when not enemies turn is like seeing sasquash in bathroom... you don't expect it but once you see the ape, you react quickly. Before then all they had was the vague intuition of king that still in danger, but that danger could perhaps easier come from a charlie or hagar surprise using known erfworld methods, in which case working with GK might be only way to survive)
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Kyrt » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:53 pm

Oberon wrote:No, sorry. Tram has been positioned as a smart diplomat, and we have yet to see any smart diplomacy out of him.


Again....without Parsons game breaking ploy....would Ossomer have connected him to Parson as Tram requested?

First off, being told a truth and not believing it is stupidity.


Unless you have a good reason to not believe it.

Truth is, Charlie doesn't appear to have have informed Tram about Parsons plan. Or even hinted at it. And without that impossible act of Parsons and GK, Charlies simple warning not to parley wasn't enough to convince.

In this case, howvever, all we know is that Charlie advised Tram not to hold a parley. He provided information that showed Parsons to be a creative warlord...an extraordinary fellow. What we don't know is...did he provide any reason for Tram to take his advise?

If he didn't, then he is presenting himself as someone who is acting very out of character (giving information and services for free) in an attempt to stop Tram talking with GK. One would have to wonder why Charlie is acting that way...and Trams conclusion is that Charlie may be afraid of GK/Parson. Or at least is acting on his own agenda which may not necessarily be to JS own interests.

It probably doesn't help that it seems, to a degree at least, to be a true conclusion.

As it is, Tram does appear to take at face value the information Charlie has provided. What he is questioning are Charlies motivations. But without Charlei actually detailing Parsons plan to him...what motivation or reason does he have to actually not hold a parley? None at all.

Secondly, there is much to debate about a position that Tram could not have changed his circumstances regardless of accepting parley or not. I believe that Tram could have made a huge difference if he had insisted on speaking to Parson and had been competent in relaying his desire for a Jetstone/GK alliance. You can disagree, it's a free Erf.
[/quote]

He did ask to speak to Parson. He wasn't looking for an Alliance. The disagreement lies in whether or not he should have simply called Parson out of the blue and without giving Parson any reason to accept his call or believe him trust that Parson would talk to him instead of going through Ossomer and gettign Parson to accept a call from his own Warlord.
Last edited by Kyrt on Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kyrt
YOTD + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
YOTD + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby barawn » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:55 pm

Foolamancer wrote:E=mcc is somewhat of a special case. It is proven if one assumes relativity to be true.


It's actually not "proven" or "disproven" at all. It's the definition of rest energy, that's all. All Einstein did was say "huh, if we try to define kinetic energy in a geometry where the speed of light is constant in all frames, we get "gamma*mc^2 - mc^2," where gamma is the Lorentz gamma. He then said "well, okay, that 'minus mc^2' bit is odd, and so I'm gonna call that term rest energy." Special relativity's postulate isn't E=mc^2, it's "the speed of light is completely and totally the same, everywhere." If that's true, everything else it describes must be true.

But E=mc^2 is a definition, not a theory. It's like Newton's second law, F=ma - it's not a theory, it's the definition of force.

C itself is still not absolutely nailed down, either.


The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. Exactly. Precisely. To a bajillion zeroes (or however many you want to stick on). It was defined to be that in 1983 - because in order to measure the speed of light, you need to know what a meter is, and what a second is. A second is precisely defined, with zero uncertainty : "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom." It's just a convention. The meter, however, was previously defined as some arbitrary number of wavelengths of the hyperfine transition of Krypton-86 (and before that, by a platinum-iridium bar which was defined to be 'the meter', and before that, as 1/10,000 of a quarter meridian). Back in the late 1970s/early 1980s, they figured out a way to measure the speed of light (via laser interferometry) so precisely that the error in the measurement came virtually entirely from the definition of the meter.

Since the definition of the meter is arbitrary, this meant that the most accurate way to determine a meter was to measure the speed of light. So, now, that's how a meter's defined.

Anyway, this is all secondary, of course. But in science, there are only a few postulates that create a theory, and everything else follows from there - it's not the results (like E=mc^2) that are the theory. Those provide things to test. The theory consists of the postulates, like special relativity's "the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames."
barawn
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:16 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby teratorn » Wed Jan 19, 2011 4:59 pm

Foolamancer wrote:Being sound means that it is logical or reasonable to say that the conclusion follows from the premises. Being true requires both that the argument is sound and that it is valid (that its premises are true).


You lost me there. Premises are postulates, they are imposed. What can be true or false is if they
describe observations in our universe or not. A theory will describe a universe, it simply may not
be ours.

The key criteria is falsifiability, for a theory to be considered scientific it must make predictions
that might be contradicted by observations in our universe. If that happens the theory is discarded as not
fitting the data (or doing so only for a given set of problems).

This thing from the martian in the toiled is not scientific since you can not think of an experiment
that could falsify it as a description of our universe.

But I'll stop here. The thread has derailed too much and there's still a bunch of days until the next update.
(By the way, I'm a scientist, I earn my living doing research in plasma physics, so I do enjoy this discussion
but I'd rather not hijack the thread).
User avatar
teratorn
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 6:33 am
Location: Algarve

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby multilis » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:24 pm

"The key criteria is falsifiability, for a theory to be considered scientific it must make predictions
that might be contradicted by observations in our universe."

Parson agrees. Charlie likely agrees. As Sizemore noticed in magic kingdom, many thinkers there don't yet, they debate rather than test theories.

Many things in both worlds are matters of "faith". Eg Wanda's "fate", Royal mandate, Toolist mandate, Titans, etc.

We have debates on similar matters in our world, and some debates are influenced by what people *want* to be true, just like Erfworld.

Will more CO2 in atmosphere be disaster or perhaps a benefit? (CO2 levels have been much higher in ancient past)

Can one type of animal turn into a completely different type of animal through only chance and natural selection, or does it require some sort of (perhaps vague) intelligence/Titans to help? "predictions that might be contradicted by observations" (eg fruit fly experiments for 100+ years) - For Erfworld this debate on "Titans" may end up important.
multilis
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Foolamancer » Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:41 pm

multilis wrote:Sasquash uses deoderant and knows how to use and flush a primitive device like a toilet. He comes from mars in a flying saucer, you keep thinking him a savage animal when he is more civilized then you. ;-)


I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?

barawn wrote:
Foolamancer wrote:E=mcc is somewhat of a special case. It is proven if one assumes relativity to be true.


It's actually not "proven" or "disproven" at all. It's the definition of rest energy, that's all.


That's why I said it was a special case. If you accept the current definition of rest energy, it is proven.

But E=mc^2 is a definition, not a theory. It's like Newton's second law, F=ma - it's not a theory, it's the definition of force.


Exactly. They're proven if you accept that our current understanding of the universe is correct, because they're the definitions we use to model that understanding of the universe. The only way to disprove E=mcc or F=ma would be to completely overturn our understanding of physics.

C itself is still not absolutely nailed down, either.


The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second. Exactly. Precisely. To a bajillion zeroes (or however many you want to stick on). It was defined to be that in 1983 - because in order to measure the speed of light, you need to know what a meter is, and what a second is.


Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten that they defined the other things in terms of the speed of light rather than the other way around. Thanks.

Back in the late 1970s/early 1980s, they figured out a way to measure the speed of light (via laser interferometry) so precisely that the error in the measurement came virtually entirely from the definition of the meter.


That's what I was referring to - the reason it wouldn't be nailed down exactly would be because our instruments simply aren't sensitive enough. Of course, I had the relationship backward.

Anyway, this is all secondary, of course. But in science, there are only a few postulates that create a theory, and everything else follows from there - it's not the results (like E=mc^2) that are the theory. Those provide things to test. The theory consists of the postulates, like special relativity's "the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames."


Right.


teratorn wrote:
Foolamancer wrote:Being sound means that it is logical or reasonable to say that the conclusion follows from the premises. Being true requires both that the argument is sound and that it is valid (that its premises are true).


You lost me there. Premises are postulates, they are imposed. What can be true or false is if they
describe observations in our universe or not. A theory will describe a universe, it simply may not
be ours.


Exactly. These theories are meant to describe our universe. If they don't, they're wrong. The aether theory was wrong. Geocentrism was wrong. They might be right in another universe (if any others exist), but they're wrong in this one.

The key criteria is falsifiability, for a theory to be considered scientific it must make predictions
that might be contradicted by observations in our universe. If that happens the theory is discarded as not
fitting the data (or doing so only for a given set of problems).


And if it is discarded, it is because its predictions were wrong.

This thing from the martian in the toiled is not scientific since you can not think of an experiment
that could falsify it as a description of our universe.


Right.
"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Foolamancer
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 am
Location: From Beale Street to Oblivion

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby kreszantas » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:02 pm

Could we please return this thread to its proper discourse which is about Erf not Earth... Thank You for your cooperation.

And on that not I just noticed how Ossomer's forlorn look is one of relief, It should have been mentioned that we still don't know for certain that if Wanda dies, the decrypted return to dust, is there a real cannon to back that up yet or are we still debating this?
Huh? What was that sound, oh nevermind it was nothing.
User avatar
kreszantas
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:15 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby teratorn » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:53 pm

kreszantas wrote:And on that not I just noticed how Ossomer's forlorn look is one of relief, It should have been mentioned that we still don't know for certain that if Wanda dies, the decrypted return to dust, is there a real cannon to back that up yet or are we still debating this?


Even Parson doesn't know that:

«Tool, we don't even know if they keep existing without her.»
User avatar
teratorn
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 6:33 am
Location: Algarve

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Squishalot » Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:55 pm

Foolamancer wrote:I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?

Consider that if a horse is defined as 'a black animal that has four legs and looks like <insert picture of horse here>', then it's reasonable to assume that all horses are black. We label black cows Angus' and brown cows Herefords (simplification). Does that mean all Angus cows are black? Yes!

What we define to ourselves plays a very powerful role in the way we think. Erfworlders define movement as only being allowed on their turn, no movement of attackers through city zones, etc. This limits their ability to think outside that definitional framework. It's not an entirely illogical view, because such actions would have been tested, much in the same way that Jillian charged into the hex boundary whilst chasing Stanley and Jack. The constant reinforcement of their definition would suggest that it's an altogether logical conclusion to make, if incorrect.

We might still be wrong about E=mcc, it's just a definition that happens to fit our understanding of the universe. Likewise with Erfworlders - their definitions just happen to fit their understanding of their universe.
Squishalot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:04 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby celtdog » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:09 pm

Awesome update! It seems like Wanda really got the boop knocked out of her... three word sentence was the longest she got out.
celtdog
I am a Tool!
I am a Tool!
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:13 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Darkmantle » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:35 pm

Scientific statements and the natural world can never absolutely and totally be proved 'true' in the same sense that mathematics can. What you say is that General Relativity provides the best explanation for a wide variety of phenomenon, the same as quantum mechanics does for a huge variety of angstrom scale observations. Neither of these theories is 100% proven and never will be. Most likely they will be replaced with something better in due course when the next leap happens. That doesn't mean that the theory is right or wrong though, just that it is incomplete. General Relativity gives the same description of the world as Newtown's laws of motion, as long as things are moving slowly.
Darkmantle
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Lamech » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:35 pm

Foolamancer wrote:I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?
How about instead of satquach just a normal tresspasser living in your house? And this could easily by watching your bathroom for long enough for it to no longer qualify as "living in the bathroom", to disprove it and you could prove it by the tresspasser screwing up.
And on horses, I mean sure one could argue that if every horse you have ever seen has been black and you have travelled all over, captured a number of horses randomly, but all the ones you have seen where black you don't have proof that horses are black. But when you get to that point the chance of shizophrenia messing with your perceptions is above the chance you just happened to not see a non-black horse. When people talk about "proof" they discount things with tiny chances such as schizophrenia. Also note people say things like "humans have two legs each" even if its really only true 99% of the time. So if you see enough horses and all of them are black and you have good sampling its correct to say "I have proof all horses are black" the way proof is used in human society. Actual 100% proof has issues 'cause schizophrenia and co. (It also disrputs logic so no proving stuff with math either.)

Kyrt wrote:Again....without Parsons game breaking ploy....would Ossomer have connected him to Parson as Tram requested?

Probably, but Parson would be more likely to talk to Tram if Ossomer doesn't say "After a round of insult Tram wants to talk to you." and doesn't say "Tram tried to turn me". If Tram wanted to use Ossomer as a recommendation he should have tried NOT insulting and being serious. Or simply telling Ossomer to put him through with someone in authority.
Kyrt wrote:He did ask to speak to Parson. He wasn't looking for an Alliance. The disagreement lies in whether or not he should have simply called Parson out of the blue and without giving Parson any reason to accept his call or believe him trust that Parson would talk to him instead of going through Ossomer and gettign Parson to accept a call from his own Warlord.
Unless Ossomer gives some sort of recommendation there is no reason for Parson to be more likely to talk to Tram simply because he got Ossomer to play messenger boy. On the other hand if Ossomer says Tram is being insulting or tried to get him to turn Parson will be less likely to take the call and more likely to conclude the parley was in bad faith.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Foolamancer » Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:47 pm

Squishalot wrote:
Foolamancer wrote:I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?

Consider that if a horse is defined as 'a black animal that has four legs and looks like <insert picture of horse here>', then it's reasonable to assume that all horses are black.


If his definition of "horse" includes the black color, then yes, his belief is logical - all he's saying is "object A is object A". However, this is not the definition of horse we are using. Again, if you're going to alter the definitions, there's no real point in discussion.

We label black cows Angus' and brown cows Herefords (simplification). Does that mean all Angus cows are black? Yes!


Exactly. But he did not say that all horses of a certain breed, or that live in a certain area, are black. He claimed that all horses are black. If you want to say that he isn't wrong because he defines "horse" as "black equine", fine; in that case, yes, his statement is logical. However, we were talking about inductive logic, not merely defining things.

What we define to ourselves plays a very powerful role in the way we think. Erfworlders define movement as only being allowed on their turn, no movement of attackers through city zones, etc. This limits their ability to think outside that definitional framework. It's not an entirely illogical view, because such actions would have been tested, much in the same way that Jillian charged into the hex boundary whilst chasing Stanley and Jack. The constant reinforcement of their definition would suggest that it's an altogether logical conclusion to make, if incorrect.


No. It would suggest that it's a reasonable conclusion to make. It is not logically proven. It is suggested by induction.

We might still be wrong about E=mcc, it's just a definition that happens to fit our understanding of the universe. Likewise with Erfworlders - their definitions just happen to fit their understanding of their universe.


No argument here. I've even said that I agree with you on this.

Lamech wrote:
Foolamancer wrote:I've said this before. No, there is no way to disprove this if you're going to give the thing capabilities like that. What's your point?


How about instead of satquach just a normal tresspasser living in your house? And this could easily by watching your bathroom for long enough for it to no longer qualify as "living in the bathroom", to disprove it and you could prove it by the tresspasser screwing up.


Exactly. But that isn't induction. That's deduction.

1. The trespasser is material, visible, etc., so he is detectable if he is in the bathroom.
2. If he spends X amount of time outside the bathroom, he no longer qualifies as living there.
3. If you go X amount of time with no sign of the trespasser, he does not live in the bathroom.

After verifying that he has spend X amount of time without entering the bathroom, you know that he doesn't live there.

And on horses, I mean sure one could argue that if every horse you have ever seen has been black and you have travelled all over, captured a number of horses randomly, but all the ones you have seen where black you don't have proof that horses are black. But when you get to that point the chance of shizophrenia messing with your perceptions is above the chance you just happened to not see a non-black horse. When people talk about "proof" they discount things with tiny chances such as schizophrenia. Also note people say things like "humans have two legs each" even if its really only true 99% of the time. So if you see enough horses and all of them are black and you have good sampling its correct to say "I have proof all horses are black" the way proof is used in human society. Actual 100% proof has issues 'cause schizophrenia and co. (It also disrputs logic so no proving stuff with math either.)


Exactly. There is a difference between colloquial "proof" and logical proof. The latter is usually just induction with a huge number of examples behind it. It is ninety-nine-point-bar-over-nine percent likely to be correct simply from the massive number of examples you have backing it, but it isn't guaranteed to be, simply because there's no way to show that there isn't a counterexample out there somewhere. We say "proof" because it's more than enough for everyday use; we don't need absolute certainty to go about our daily lives.

Logical proof requires more. It requires valid supporting premises and a conclusion which logically follows. This is actually very rare, but we don't need it to operate on a day-to-day basis, so it doesn't matter.
"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
User avatar
Foolamancer
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:00 am
Location: From Beale Street to Oblivion

Re: Book 2 – Page 51

Postby Squishalot » Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:04 pm

Foolamancer wrote:Logical proof requires more. It requires valid supporting premises and a conclusion which logically follows. This is actually very rare, but we don't need it to operate on a day-to-day basis, so it doesn't matter.

Actually, we're arguing at cross-purposes here. Consider:

Logical proof = proving that something is true based on a series of logical premises.

Logical conclusion = making a logically consistent conclusion based on a series of premises.

For a proof, you need to demonstrate that your supporting premise(s) is/are factually correct. The difference between a proof and a conclusion is that a conclusion is a deduction derived from a series of premises, that will be factually correct if the premises are factually correct. The conclusion itself can be logical, even if the premises are incorrect.

As an example:

"All frogs are green. Kermit is a frog. Therefore, Kermit is green."

The conclusion that Kermit is green is a logical conclusion. Given (A) and (B) are both true, (C) must be true. However, it is not a proof that Kermit is green, because we haven't proven that all frogs are green.

So going back to the original point, it's a logical conclusion that all horses are black, even if it's not a logical proof.
Squishalot
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:04 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AbuDhabi, Balance, Man in the Mists, Selexor and 19 guests