Jump to content

Is Yes the Same as No?


Recommended Posts

Again, I ask the same question as before: Is affirmation the same as negation?

This time, I'll add a bit of clarification to help certain individuals with their strained understanding 😉:

Bob flites/argues that yes = no on all meta-levels, th.i. over-levels, and so makes in particular the following flite:

0. Meta-NOT(object-yes = object-no) (obviously true premise/forestep)

1. Meta-YES(object-yes = object-no) (from (1.) by the law that meta-no = meta-yes)

2. object-yes = object-no after all (a reformulation of (1.)

Alice now says: "No, meta-yes ≠ meta-no",

to which Bob replies: "True, and since over-meta-yes = over-meta-no, you're saying that meta-yes = meta-no after all";
that is, Bob does the same thing as before one level higher.

Alice says that Bob's flites/arguments are fully unflitecrafty/illogical, but Bob dryly answers that flitecraftiness is one and the same as unflitecraftiness.

Coming back to the above-mentioned certain individuals, accusing Bob of lacking understanding only shows that they themselves lack what they falsely assert Bob lacks. Ironically, Bob could actually come to their rescue if he wants to, namely by claiming that not understanding is the same understanding. But even though cursing and not cursing are one and the same after Bob, I, having a normal, Alice-like mindset, ask those individuals to nevertheless keep to the rules of courteous philosophical talk. 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob is wrong. He is not arguing, he is asserting. And he is asserting something which is not true. This makes any conclusion based on his premise invalid.

This is a little like the Monty Python sketch about arguments, except in the MP sketch the bad faith is done to be funny, and it's not at all evident that you are attempting humor here.

Are you contending that Bob's assertion is credible?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tristan L said:

Again, I ask the same question as before: Is affirmation the same as negation?

This time, I'll add a bit of clarification to help certain individuals with their strained understanding 😉:

Bob flites/argues that yes = no on all meta-levels, th.i. over-levels, and so makes in particular the following flite:

0. Meta-NOT(object-yes = object-no) (obviously true premise/forestep)

1. Meta-YES(object-yes = object-no) (from (1.) by the law that meta-no = meta-yes)

2. object-yes = object-no after all (a reformulation of (1.)

Alice now says: "No, meta-yes ≠ meta-no",

to which Bob replies: "True, and since over-meta-yes = over-meta-no, you're saying that meta-yes = meta-no after all";
that is, Bob does the same thing as before one level higher.

Alice says that Bob's flites/arguments are fully unflitecrafty/illogical, but Bob dryly answers that flitecraftiness is one and the same as unflitecraftiness.

Coming back to the above-mentioned certain individuals, accusing Bob of lacking understanding only shows that they themselves lack what they falsely assert Bob lacks. Ironically, Bob could actually come to their rescue if he wants to, namely by claiming that not understanding is the same understanding. But even though cursing and not cursing are one and the same after Bob, I, having a normal, Alice-like mindset, ask those individuals to nevertheless keep to the rules of courteous philosophical talk. 😀

Are you trying to provide evidence for the proposition that philosophy is a waste of time? 😁 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

Are you trying to provide evidence for the proposition that philosophy is a waste of time? 😁 

Well, I like philosophizing a lot, but a good amount of self-criticism isn't bad, so the curious case of Bob the Monist reminds us to ask whether philosophy is just a waste of time.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

It's certainly a waste of Tim... :doh:

Bob: "Why, of couse it is! After all, it's the usefullest thing you can do with your time, and usefulness is identical with uselessness."

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Bob is wrong. He is not arguing, he is asserting. And he is asserting something which is not true. This makes any conclusion based on his premise invalid.

Alice: "Of course he's wrong."

Bob: "Yes, I'm definitely wrong. Heck, what I say is ridiculous and blatantly incorrect, going against the most basic laws of logic/flitecraft... and since wrongness=rightness, I'm utterly right in every way, and I'm the wisest of all."

Alice: "I had a huge flite/argument about it with him, but all flites were of little use. He himself triumphantly claimed that what he does outdoes all fliting in smartness. He immediately admits that his premise/forestep is false, and then uses false=true to draw the conclusion that his premise is true. While my fliting/arguing was useless, I could have gotten him by threatening violence."

Also heed the short flite in the opening post.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Are you contending that Bob's assertion is credible?

No, of course not; I'm on Alice's side.

Alice: "The problem is just that he's as slippery as a fish; if we use a philosophical flite against him, he won't go against us, but instead take the flite as being for him, since for=against after him. Therefore, we can't meaningfully flite against him from his POV; not because he's too strong for us, but because going against him is the same as going with him according to him. We simply can't grip him in a talk."

Bob: "True, and that means that I am too strong for the lot of you and that my claim is true in the strongest possible way. 😁"

Alice: "😠. But there is a point: We can't define negation without using negation. We can't even negate the identity of yes and no without making use of negation in the first place."

Yeah, that's the problem: Bob threatens to collapse logic, and the very tool with which to halt that collapse, negation, is itself under attack by the collapse.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

it's not at all evident that you are attempting humor here.

Well, I am being humorous, but the funniest thing of all is that the flitecraftio/logician who hears the tale of Alice and Bob and truly gives it thought goes like this: "Hahahaha! 🤣 Hahaha! Haha! Ha! Um... What if everything truly is one and the same, including oneness and not-oneness?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tristan L said:

Well, I like philosophizing a lot, but a good amount of self-criticism isn't bad, so the curious case of Bob the Monist reminds us to ask whether philosophy is just a waste of time.

Bob: "Why, of couse it is! After all, it's the usefullest thing you can do with your time, and usefulness is identical with uselessness."

Alice: "Of course he's wrong."

Bob: "Yes, I'm definitely wrong. Heck, what I say is ridiculous and blatantly incorrect, going against the most basic laws of logic/flitecraft... and since wrongness=rightness, I'm utterly right in every way, and I'm the wisest of all."

Alice: "I had a huge flite/argument about it with him, but all flites were of little use. He himself triumphantly claimed that what he does outdoes all fliting in smartness. He immediately admits that his premise/forestep is false, and then uses false=true to draw the conclusion that his premise is true. While my fliting/arguing was useless, I could have gotten him by threatening violence."

Also heed the short flite in the opening post.

No, of course not; I'm on Alice's side.

Alice: "The problem is just that he's as slippery as a fish; if we use a philosophical flite against him, he won't go against us, but instead take the flite as being for him, since for=against after him. Therefore, we can't meaningfully flite against him from his POV; not because he's too strong for us, but because going against him is the same as going with him according to him. We simply can't grip him in a talk."

Bob: "True, and that means that I am too strong for the lot of you and that my claim is true in the strongest possible way. 😁"

Alice: "😠. But there is a point: We can't define negation without using negation. We can't even negate the identity of yes and no without making use of negation in the first place."

Yeah, that's the problem: Bob threatens to collapse logic, and the very tool with which to halt that collapse, negation, is itself under attack by the collapse.

Well, I am being humorous, but the funniest thing of all is that the flitecraftio/logician who hears the tale of Alice and Bob and truly gives it thought goes like this: "Hahahaha! 🤣 Hahaha! Haha! Ha! Um... What if everything truly is one and the same, including oneness and not-oneness?"

Any argument that concludes no=yes is self-evidently wrong, so the only value in it [yawn] is trying to spot the error.  

Apart from anything else, if you argue no=yes, you will have the Me Too movement down on you like a tonload of bricks, and quite rightly.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Did we need more?

Haha. Actually I do have time for philosophy, in principle. For instance, one needs at least a bit about the philosophy of science to explain its key features to those that don't know. But the argument in this thread does strike me as something of an exercise in staring up one's own arse, I must admit.😀  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tristan L said:

No, of course not; I'm on Alice's side.

Alice: "The problem is just that he's as slippery as a fish; if we use a philosophical flite against him, he won't go against us, but instead take the flite as being for him, since for=against after him. Therefore, we can't meaningfully flite against him from his POV; not because he's too strong for us, but because going against him is the same as going with him according to him. We simply can't grip him in a talk."

Bob: "True, and that means that I am too strong for the lot of you and that my claim is true in the strongest possible way. 😁"

Alice: "😠. But there is a point: We can't define negation without using negation. We can't even negate the identity of yes and no without making use of negation in the first place."

Yeah, that's the problem: Bob threatens to collapse logic, and the very tool with which to halt that collapse, negation, is itself under attack by the collapse.

You've made an excellent argument in support of moderated exchanges, in which a third party has the authority to tell Bob that assertion isn't argument, things are not true simply because he says they are, and if he continues to argue in bad faith, he will be shown the door.

 

Quote

Well, I am being humorous, but the funniest thing of all is that the flitecraftio/logician who hears the tale of Alice and Bob and truly gives it thought goes like this: "Hahahaha! 🤣 Hahaha! Haha! Ha! Um... What if everything truly is one and the same, including oneness and not-oneness?"

Then there is no point in communication, so all of this is moot. From a practical standpoint, we must reject Bob's position, because if everything is the same no progress can be made. All trees are fish and all fish are trees, declared by fiat!

Bob: My work is done, pay me!

Bob's boss: You did no work at all.

Bob: No work and all work are the same thing! Pay me!

<later>

<Bob carries sign: Will philosophize exceedingly badly for food>

 

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Any argument that concludes no=yes is self-evidently wrong, so the only value in it [yawn] is trying to spot the error.  

It's the "Where's Waldo" where Waldo is the only person in the frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tristan L said:

Bob flites/argues that yes = no on all meta-levels, th.i. over-levels

That seems to imply that it does not matter what phrase, word or other symbol we use instead of "yes" and "no", for instance Y/N or "0" and "1". Every question with two options will be answered by yes=no (or 0=1 in digital form). This also applies to a question of how to encode Bobs own arguments into text or speech. since yes=no (or 1=0) we may according to Bob write his own arguments as a stream of zeroes 000000... or one single zero "0". From an information theory point of view it means that there is no entropy* and no conversation or information content is possible. The fact that Bob is able to communicate and argue for his case means he is inherently wrong.

 

*) The "informational value" of a communicated message depends on the degree to which the content of the message is surprising. If an event is very probable, it is no surprise (and generally uninteresting) when that event happens as expected; hence transmission of such a message carries very little new information.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

 

Edited by Ghideon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Apart from anything else, if you argue no=yes, you will have the Me Too movement down on you like a tonload of bricks, and quite rightly.   

🤣👍

5 hours ago, exchemist said:

Any argument that concludes no=yes is self-evidently wrong, so the only value in it [yawn] is trying to spot the error.  

Bob: "Why, of course it's wrong, that is, right! Thus, it has no errors, i.e. loads of them, and it's indeed worth it to spot them."

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Interestingly I learned today that there is no word for yes and no word for no in Scottish Gaelic.

It's not alone there; Latin also doesn't have exact equivalents of "yes" and "no" afaik.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

assertion isn't argument, things are not true simply because he says they are,

Bob: "You're right on every single point. (Indeed, you're always right, for you're always right or wrong by the Excluded Middle Law, and since both are the same, you're always right or right, th.i. right by Idempotence of OR.) Of course assertion isn't flite, and of course things aren't true just because I say so. In other words, and these are your exact - and as always impeccably true - words: 'assertion is flite, and things are true just because Bob says so'."

Although the following is only a part of Bob's fishy whatever, it's an important one for understanding him: He draws object-yes=object-no from meta-yes=meta-no. But again, this is just the beginning.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

and if he continues to argue in bad faith, he will be shown the door.

Yes,  but just as Alice's threat to hit him, this is throughly unphilosophical.

What's that? Alice says: "But on Bob's account, being unphilosophical is the same as being philosophical, so showing him the door, or giving him one of my karate-kicks 😁, is fair philosophical debating."

Bob: 😰

So Bob's own weapons can be brooked/used against him.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Then there is no point in communication, so all of this is moot. From a practical standpoint, we must reject Bob's position, because if everything is the same no progress can be made. All trees are fish and all fish are trees, declared by fiat!

Alice: "I fully forewyrd/agree with you ..."

Bob: "... as do I."
 

36 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That seems to imply that it does not matter what phrase, word or other symbol we use instead of "yes" and "no", for instance Y/N or "0" and "1". Every question with two options will be answered by yes=no (or 0=1 in digital form). This also applies to a question of how to encode Bobs own arguments into text or speech. since yes=no (or 1=0) we may according to Bob write his own arguments as a stream of zeroes 000000... or one single zero "0". From an information theory point of view it means that there is no entropy* and no conversation or information content is possible.

On the point!

37 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The fact that Bob is able to communicate and argue for his case means he is inherently wrong.

Unluckily, that's just what Bob claims: That what he does is not arguing (but something far better) and that there's no informational content ever since all is supposedly one, though we have to bear in mind that for him, arguing = not arguing and meaningfulness=meaninglessness and ability to communicate = inability to communicate and info-content = no info-content (1 bit = 0 bit).

Alice: "From my POV, which I share with you guys, he can tell us stuff, and what he says is meaningful but trivially false; but from his POV, he can and can't tell us anything and what he says is meaningful and meaningless and true and false."

Bob: "How often do I have to say this again: I'm utterly wrong."

***

Alice: "I've made the following metaphor: We see ourselves on one side of a chessboard-paper and Bob on the opposite side, and on the rectangular paper we fight him. But the true Bob is the one who tries to join our side and his side of the paper and makes an open cylinder out of the rectangle."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Tristan L said:

(1 bit = 0 bit)

Ok. As Bob is unable to communicate and hence participate in a fruitful discussion I'll move on to other more interesting threads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tristan L said:
13 hours ago, studiot said:

Interestingly I learned today that there is no word for yes and no word for no in Scottish Gaelic.

It's not alone there; Latin also doesn't have exact equivalents of "yes" and "no" afaik.

Thank you for your response and the extra information.

 

Latin, however does not have the superior scottish legal system that overcomes the inherent difficulties you are putting forward in first order logic.

That is it the law of the excluded middle is not always valid and inappropriate use leads to many of the so called paradoxes in Philosophy, just as you have done here.

9 hours ago, Tristan L said:

Bob: "You're right on every single point. (Indeed, you're always right, for you're always right or wrong by the Excluded Middle Law, and since both are the same, you're always right or right, th.i. right by Idempotence of OR.) Of course assertion isn't flite, and of course things aren't true just because I say so. In other words, and these are your exact - and as always impeccably true - words: 'assertion is flite, and things are true just because Bob says so'."

 

9 hours ago, Tristan L said:

Unluckily, that's just what Bob claims: That what he does is not arguing (but something far better) and that there's no informational content ever since all is supposedly one, though we have to bear in mind that for him, arguing = not arguing and meaningfulness=meaninglessness and ability to communicate = inability to communicate and info-content = no info-content (1 bit = 0 bit).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, studiot said:

Interestingly I learned today that there is no word for yes and no word for no in Scottish Gaelic.

Ditto Irish- so I understand.

So you get exchanges like

"Are you going for lunch?"

"I am".


This stuff about language may be the most useful bit of the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Ditto Irish- so I understand.

So you get exchanges like

"Are you going for lunch?"

"I am".


This stuff about language may be the most useful bit of the thread.

Do the Irish also have a not proven verdict ?

 

There was an interesing discussion on Quora about 'yes and no' in other languages,

Apparently two negatives do not make a positive in some languages (e g Russian).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Tristan L said:

🤣👍

Bob: "Why, of course it's wrong, that is, right! Thus, it has no errors, i.e. loads of them, and it's indeed worth it to spot them."

It's not alone there; Latin also doesn't have exact equivalents of "yes" and "no" afaik.

Bob: "You're right on every single point. (Indeed, you're always right, for you're always right or wrong by the Excluded Middle Law, and since both are the same, you're always right or right, th.i. right by Idempotence of OR.) Of course assertion isn't flite, and of course things aren't true just because I say so. In other words, and these are your exact - and as always impeccably true - words: 'assertion is flite, and things are true just because Bob says so'."

Although the following is only a part of Bob's fishy whatever, it's an important one for understanding him: He draws object-yes=object-no from meta-yes=meta-no. But again, this is just the beginning.

Yes,  but just as Alice's threat to hit him, this is throughly unphilosophical.

What's that? Alice says: "But on Bob's account, being unphilosophical is the same as being philosophical, so showing him the door, or giving him one of my karate-kicks 😁, is fair philosophical debating."

Bob: 😰

So Bob's own weapons can be brooked/used against him.

Alice: "I fully forewyrd/agree with you ..."

Bob: "... as do I."
 

On the point!

Unluckily, that's just what Bob claims: That what he does is not arguing (but something far better) and that there's no informational content ever since all is supposedly one, though we have to bear in mind that for him, arguing = not arguing and meaningfulness=meaninglessness and ability to communicate = inability to communicate and info-content = no info-content (1 bit = 0 bit).

Alice: "From my POV, which I share with you guys, he can tell us stuff, and what he says is meaningful but trivially false; but from his POV, he can and can't tell us anything and what he says is meaningful and meaningless and true and false."

Bob: "How often do I have to say this again: I'm utterly wrong."

***

Alice: "I've made the following metaphor: We see ourselves on one side of a chessboard-paper and Bob on the opposite side, and on the rectangular paper we fight him. But the true Bob is the one who tries to join our side and his side of the paper and makes an open cylinder out of the rectangle."

This is intellectual masturbation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alice: "As much as it hurts me to admit it - for I have the strongest stance against him -, I must say none of you have managed to tackle Bob. [sigh]"

Come on, Alice, how can that be so hard?!

Ok, so let me say a bit more about the goal of this thread and clarify what it's truly about. First off: It's not  - Bob: "... and therefore it is 😉 ..." -  about Bob the sophist, but rather about Bob the monist.

Orspringlily/Originally, I didn't have a weird interlocutor like Bob in mind at all; rather, I was wondering how to define logical operators, in particular NOT. The first thing to characterize this operator than sprang to my mind was Doube-Negation: NOT(NOT(A)) = A for every proposition A, but then I immediately realized that YES (affirmation) also fulfills this bethinging/condition: YES(YES(A)) = A for every proposition A. I thought a bit more about the matter and came to the conclusion that to define NOT, I need NOT in the first place; even worse: To set NOT apart from YES, I already need the setting asunder of NO from YES, but even if I can take that as a given starting-ord/point, it would still fit with YES and NOT being the same, for if YES is indeed the same as NOT, difference is the same as sameness.

Please think carefully about the following as a start:-

Bob: "YES2(NOT1 =2 YES1)"

Alice: "No Bob, in truth NOT2(NOT1 =2 YES1)."

Bob: "True, and since YES3(NOT2 =3 YES2), we have NOT2(NOT1 =2 YES1) =3 YES2(NOT1 =2 YES1), so you forewyrd/agree with me that YES2(NOT1 =2 YES1)."

Alice: "No, in truth NOT3(NOT2 =3 YES2)."

...

For every proper natural rimetale/number (i.e. every positive whole rimetale) n, the exchange runs like so:

Alice: "No Bob, in truth NOTn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn)."

Bob: "Yes Alice, and since YESn+2(NOTn+1 =n+2 YESn+1), we have NOTn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) =n+2 YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn), so you forewyrd/agree with me that YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn)."

...

Alice: "No Bob, in sooth/reality we have NOTω0(YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) for any proper natural n) and NOTω0(YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) for every proper natural n)", where "ω0" means the first not-endly ordinal / fade-rimetale.

Bob: "Yes Alice, and since YESω0+1(NOTω0 =ω0+1 YESω0), we have (NOTω0(YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) for any proper natural n)) =ω0+1 (YESω0(YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) for some proper natural n)) and (NOTω0(YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) for every proper natural n)) =ω0+1 (YESω0(YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) for every proper natural n)), so you forewyrd with me that YESω0(YESn+1(NOTn =n+1 YESn) for every proper natural n).

...

Then it goes on like this with all the ordinals.

Let me tell you beforehand that Bob appears to agree with all of you and to affirm everything that you've said or will say or could say (and even what you could not say). Bob comes over as a sophist, but the true Bob is a truly radical/rootly monist. Bob the sophist can easily be beaten by Alice's ruse: "Bob, since you don't want me to hit you and wanting is the same as not wanting, I'll fulfill your wish and hit you 😁", but what about Bob the monist?

The challenge of this thread, then, is this: How can we escape radical monism?

Oh no, Bob has to say something again: "Even if you do manage to escape, which you easily can, you can't excape, for to can escape is the same as to not can escape."

Alice: "Bob's soothly/really a pain in the neck, but he does show us something deep yet so onefold/simple that it seems to have been overlooked over the ages: that fornoing/negation is most magnificently rounful/mysterious and rouny/mystical."

9 hours ago, studiot said:

you are putting forward in first order logic.

I'm obviously not merely concered with first-order flitecraft, but with all-order-flitecraft and beyond.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

That is it the law of the excluded middle is not always valid and inappropriate use leads to many of the so called paradoxes in Philosophy, just as you have done here.

No, Excluded Middle actually has little to do with my point. Can you give me one example/byspel where Excluded Middle fails?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Tristan L said:

I'm obviously not merely concered with first-order flitecraft, but with all-order-flitecraft and beyond.

Contrarywise the opposite is obvious to myownself.

So I executed three half turns widdershins to compensate.

4 hours ago, Tristan L said:

No, Excluded Middle actually has little to do with my point. Can you give me one example/byspel where Excluded Middle fails?

Yourowngoodself introduced the law of the excluded middle not yourstruly.

In direct and fullsomeness of answer to your supplication for an exemplification

Here is a spel from the great book of the WikiMaester.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@studiot, could you please at least try to understand what I'm saying 🙂 before you behaving as if you know everything about the matter? It's just like with my entropy-thread, where you appear to know the matter at hand very well and seek to graciously sweetle/explain it to me, but in fact understand very little what I'm even talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We understand you’re talking nonsense. Little more is needed than to explain why it’s patently absurd, being argued in bad faith, and move on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Tristan L said:

@studiot, could you please at least try to understand what I'm saying 🙂 before you behaving as if you know everything about the matter? It's just like with my entropy-thread, where you appear to know the matter at hand very well and seek to graciously sweetle/explain it to me, but in fact understand very little what I'm even talking about.

Oh dear.

I really thought the new forum upgrade included a change from plain English to Runish.

Is that not the case.

Frightfully sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.