CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 I'm trying to find examples of statements that are neither true or false. There are no absolutes.
blike Posted March 23, 2003 Author Posted March 23, 2003 There are no absolutes. I disagree. While human subjectivity may skew the nature of something, that something still exists in its absolute, true form. I don't think its dependant on how we view it.
JaKiri Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM There are no absolutes. If you mean that there can be nothing without axioms, then that's a pretty pointless post. If you mean that nothing can be absolutely true with the presence of axioms, then you're ignoring mathematics.
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 Well, actually I meant, to say "there are no absolutes" is stating an absolute, meaning it is a statement that is neither true or false as the original post asked ....buuuut... It is true that no logic can exist without axioms/Given Absolutes, and it is equally true that nothing based on an axiom is true if that axiom itself is not true. HOWEVER the only way to tell whether or not an axiom is true is if you have a logical system exclusive of that axiom. So really I haven't ignored mathematics at ALL.
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted March 23, 2003 Posted March 23, 2003 I disagree. While human subjectivity may skew the nature of something, that something still exists in its absolute, true form. I don't think its dependant on how we view it. But what is absolute is COMPLETELY relative to the observer....
JaKiri Posted March 24, 2003 Posted March 24, 2003 Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM HOWEVER the only way to tell whether or not an axiom is true is if you have a logical system exclusive of that axiom. If you can prove an axiom to be true, then it's not an axiom, is it?
Glider Posted March 24, 2003 Posted March 24, 2003 Not sure how you could prove an axiom to be true as it is, by definition: "A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted or self-evidently true" (New Oxford dictionary).
CHRISCUNNINGHAM Posted March 25, 2003 Posted March 25, 2003 If you can prove an axiom to be true, then it's not an axiom, is it? EXACTLY. One can't prove an "axiom" to be true,UNLESS one has a logical system exclusive of that axiom. Thus, what is absolute is RELATIVE to the observer.
Sayonara Posted March 25, 2003 Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri If you mean that there can be nothing without axioms, then that's a pretty pointless post. Well, yeah. And it's the same post every time, essentially.
JaKiri Posted March 25, 2003 Posted March 25, 2003 Originally posted by CHRISCUNNINGHAM EXACTLY. One can't prove an "axiom" to be true,UNLESS one has a logical system exclusive of that axiom. Thus, what is absolute is RELATIVE to the observer. In other words, what you're saying is that if it's axiomic relative to an observer, then it's axiomic relative to an observer? You're still biggin it up with da truisms bro.
BPHgravity Posted May 6, 2003 Posted May 6, 2003 How about: The quantity of electrons is rapidly approaching infinity. Does this meet the criteria?
Tom Mattson Posted May 6, 2003 Posted May 6, 2003 Originally posted by blike Thats what I always thought, but I was looking into some stuff about fuzzy logic. "the sentence below is false the sentence above is true" heres another "All John's are liars". [i am John] None of these sentences can be true or false. They have values between true and false. This is not about fuzzy logic, but about formally undecidable propositions. You may have heard of Kurt Goedel. He had many theorems, but the one known as "Goedel's Theorem" was published in a paper called On Formally Undecidable Propositions, and it states that every formal system at least as complicated as arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent. A consequence of this is that all formal systems break down under self-reference (that is, when a statement refers to its own truth value). Fuzzy logic is a different animal altogether, as it relaxes the restriction of a two-valued logic. Tom
blike Posted May 6, 2003 Author Posted May 6, 2003 This is not about fuzzy logic Ah, I was just going by what SciAm called it. They were probably oversimplifying things for the general reader.
Tom Mattson Posted May 7, 2003 Posted May 7, 2003 The underlined text in my last post are links (wasn't sure if that was obvious). You can get more detailed info on Goedel, his theorem, and fuzzy logic by following them. Tom
blike Posted May 7, 2003 Author Posted May 7, 2003 Thanks, yea, I knew they were links, but I hadn't checked them out yet.
MiguelBladesman Posted June 25, 2003 Posted June 25, 2003 Originally posted by Glider Not sure how you could prove an axiom to be true as it is, by definition: "A statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted or self-evidently true" (New Oxford dictionary). Yes Glider, we start with operating assumptions, presumed to be "true" possibly, but the point is, they are operating assumptions. That they are operating assumptions is a truth, but.....(((groan)))... [and that's why I'm investing in suppositories!]
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now