Log in

No account? Create an account

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
Chaos Matrix

May 25th, 2005

Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
02:13 pm - Warning: Evolution might be involved!
I would approve of putting evolution warning stickers on text books if they looked like this:

Maybe it's time to make such stickers and distribute them to certain school boards. Any takers?
Current Mood: amusedamused
Current Music: "She's Going Out of My Mind", -JB

(32 comments Leave a comment)


[User Picture]
Date:May 25th, 2005 08:02 pm (UTC)
I have to warn you, though, I'm decidedly not a classical logician; not only do I deny the principle of the excluded middle, but I deny the principle of non-contradiction (since it leads to the absurd consequences of non-relevant logics). I'm completely out in left-field according to most logicians.
[User Picture]
Date:May 25th, 2005 08:38 pm (UTC)
Well, you must be good... you've lost me already. :(
[User Picture]
Date:May 25th, 2005 08:39 pm (UTC)
I'll put it in layman's terms: there are more than two truth-values and there is at least one statement that is both true and false.
[User Picture]
Date:May 26th, 2005 05:39 am (UTC)
Ah, the Sri Syadasti school.
[User Picture]
Date:May 26th, 2005 07:01 am (UTC)
Basically. However, what makes it all the more beautiful is that I came to it after studying academic logic derived from the Aristotelian tradition ... that and the fact that my birthday is March 19 (go Van Van Mojo! ... or is it Patamunzo Lingananda?). I came to the first part since prelinearity (for all statements, p and q, (p -> q) v (q -> p)) follows from bivlance (for all p, p v ~p) and, in natural language argumentation, prelinearity is total bullshit, and if a logical principle doesn't work with natural language, I don't find it acceptable; I came to the second by considering the irrelevant consequences of ex contradictione quodlibet (such as, for all q and p, q -> (p -> q) ), which follows from the law of non-contradiction. I just consider statements like "This statement is false" as all that's sufficient to show that there is at least one true contradiction (it's true if and only if its false).
I'm rationally justified in my apparent irrationality! It's sweet!
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
Date:May 26th, 2005 09:38 pm (UTC)

Re: Just to check

Yes ... in any formal axiomatic system strong enough to do natural number theory (which requires that it's second-order, has identity, and has the predicate "... is a natural number"), there exists a truth expressible in the system which is not provable using the system (that is, it's incomplete). Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem states that for all such systems, its completeness entails its inconsistency. Paraconsistent logics, ones which reject ex contradictione quodlibet by accepting the meaningfulness of statements like "This statement is false", can apparently be complete.

> Go to Top