AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Discussion > Older Series > Retired > Umineko

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-07-16, 17:26   Link #29681
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
You're not saying it does exist, you're saying "the dragon that lives in the forest" is purple. No such dragon exists, so it isn't purple or not purple, so it's meaningless and the statement can be true.

If "lives in the forest" is intended to be a profession of existence, then it's false.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 18:08   Link #29682
RandomAvatarFan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Then what about "some cows are lilac" then? Is it possible to state that in red because some lilac fictional cows exist or is it impossible because for that red to be effective there must be real lilac cows somewhere?
I've never seen a purple cow.
And I never hope to see one.
But I'll tell you any how.
You can't disprove the existence of some undiscovered Cow X.

I really don't think that you can say that something that does not exist "is" something, which is what Renall is saying. Granted, I'm not sure I've completely grasped what it is he's trying to say. It's a "both" thing like the cat in the box is "both alive and dead," which I have troubles with.

To a mind like mine, it makes sense for you to be able to say The purple dragon does not exist. or even The purple dragon is not purple. , but it doesn't make sense to be able to say "The purple dragon is purple." because I would say it has to be in a state of being in order for the dragon to perform the verb "is".
__________________

Without love this picture cannot be seen.
RandomAvatarFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 18:22   Link #29683
Judoh
Mystery buff
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gone Fishin!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Spoiler for Erika battles cows:
how now, brown cow?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Then what about "some cows are lilac" then? Is it possible to state that in red because some lilac fictional cows exist or is it impossible because for that red to be effective there must be real lilac cows somewhere
The way I see it is it's how the person intended the statement's meaning that makes it true or not. If by "some cows are lilac" you mean that cows that are lilac exist, and they don't exist, then it's false.

if you mean it from a fictional perspective. It might be true if you're talking about a fictional world, or if you're a character that lives in the fictional world and you believe that ,but you might also have to add more to the sentence for it to be valid.

Like so: the hero, lives on the planet poptart, where there are lush, pink, meadows, green skies, and where some cows are Lilac
Judoh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 18:26   Link #29684
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
You're not saying it does exist, you're saying "the dragon that lives in the forest" is purple. No such dragon exists, so it isn't purple or not purple, so it's meaningless and the statement can be true.

If "lives in the forest" is intended to be a profession of existence, then it's false.
I think it is an outright lie to state that something is purple if it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist that's neither purple nor anything, it's colorless.

Quote:
if you mean it from a fictional perspective. It might be true if you're talking about a fictional world, or if you're a character that lives in the fictional world and you believe that ,but you might also have to add more to the sentence for it to be valid.

Like so: the hero, lives on the planet poptart, where there are lush, pink, meadows, green skies, and where some cows are Lilac
If you could make use of a red related to fictions not related to the game in a game without any notice it would be pointless. I think we should exclude that possibility as any other justification we came up with strange reds would be completely meaningless. The "this red is related to some other non specified fiction X" would explain everything.
But it would also mean that red truths have absolutely no value.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 18:52   Link #29685
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
I think it is an outright lie to state that something is purple if it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist that's neither purple nor anything, it's colorless.
It's not colorless either. It doesn't exist. "It's purple" is false. But so is "it isn't purple." That's the logical conundrum. It's an amusing philosophical question, not a lie.

The question is, was Ryukishi using it? I'd say no, not intentionally. If it comes up it's just accidental and tangential to what he was trying to do.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 19:02   Link #29686
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
It's not colorless either. It doesn't exist. "It's purple" is false. But so is "it isn't purple."
I disagree, "it isn't purple" is correct. Let's say a madman founds a new "religion" and claims "Blipdoolpoolp is almighty!", "Blipdoolpoolp is all knowing!", "Blipdoolpoolp is the only true goddess!"
Saying that "Blipdoolpoolp isn't almighty, Blipdoolpoolp isn't all knowing, Blipdoolpoolp isn't a goddess at all, Blipdoolpoolp doesn't exist" is a perfectly acceptable and correct reply.


Your interpretation is bordering with a non congnitivist philosophy, and that's quite debatable in my opinion. You are falling in the same philosphical fluff that defies common sense that you criticized in Haguruma.
__________________

Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 19:03   Link #29687
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
There is an easy way to solve all of this... Everything Erika did not see with her own eyes is a lie, until the scene itself in its whole presentation is proven by a definite red. But even if Erika is present, there may be blind spots where a fake scenery is created by the game master.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-16, 21:35   Link #29688
RandomAvatarFan
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
GreyZone.... let's take it a step further. It's fake scenery created by the Reader. Isn't this that one of the points that we made in this debate: how the red was being used to pull smoke over our eyes? Even though the red is completely and utterly true (like Erika's EP5 perspective) what is in our "blind spots" we just assume (like the door to the Chapel in EP2 was locked) Kind of like how our brains "assume" what it sees in your actual blind spots. This is things like the the "lock of the Golden Truth" or whatever Will said in EP7. It's not a representation of the GameMaster vs Challenged that's going on, but a representation of Author vs. Reader.

Now that I'm thinking about Reader Theory, I remember a lot of people complaining about Kanon being in the room once Erika gathered everyone together.... but it can be explained using Reader Theory. The Reader reads "everyone was gathered" and imagines Shannon standing on one side of the room and Kanon on the other. What we were seeing was the Reader's infuence. It still violates a more pure form of Knox's 8th though =/
__________________

Without love this picture cannot be seen.
RandomAvatarFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 03:43   Link #29689
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Ah thanks Renall, that does make sense. Though I don't remember ep 5 addressed these empty truths you are talking about.

Then again, I don't remember Usagi's laugh either.

Quote:
In that logic it's just forum rules beyond anything else that prevents posting a link to a software that isn't legal.
Actually, what I had previously thought was that unless Alchemist released an English PSP or PS3 version (which I thought they didn't) then the patch the post was referring to was either some fan's translation (unlikely since we know how tough it was for you guys) or that they used your translation script and adapted it. Now I know it just changes graphics though. The money comment was me saying I wasn't worried about stealing from you guys since I already bought both games.

Also I apologise for calling them 'better graphic versions', I am just not sure if they were ported with a new name. It might have been rondo or something

Quote:
None of the characters misidentified a knocking sound.
That wa
Quote:
s not the red used however

To structure it more closely with the Japanese formulation, perhaps, but grammatically there's no real difference in English. I was careful with my formulations to refer to everything as directly as possible, e.g. "the space aliens in the hallway" are a singular descriptive unit of a nonexistent entity, not an assertion that the aliens do actually exist there. It's just misleading.
I would have to say that the way Jan-Poo structured it made the red possible without delving into the specifics in logic, the grammar is actually important.

Quote:
no one caused the knock
And yet no human alive or dead could have killed Kanon.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 05:07   Link #29690
unsuspectingvisitor
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
About the knock, there another answer I can think of.

The knock that they heard came from the cassette tape just like what Erika suggested in her blue truth. The red truth about misinterpreting the knock was just a dirty trick so that Erika will dropped the idea of a recorded knock. I still don't get it myself but I'll try to explain. That red truth about misinterpreting a knock is just a farce. Noone inside the dining hall misinterpret the knock as a real knock because when Kanon opened the door, He didn't see anyone on the hallway. It was said by Lambda that the real knock she was talking about was a direct knock. It's when a human knock directly on the door. The hallway was empty and It was even said in red that noone except the three people on the second floor and those people in the dining hall existed inside the mansion at that time. There's also this red truth.
"In short, this means it was impossible for any character within the mansion to be the source of a knocking SOUND. ......And 'any character' refers even to unobserved people that no one has noticed."
This means that the knock that they heard didn't come from a human knocking directly on the door of the dining hall. It came from something else so there's no way that they would misinterpret it as a real knock.
That's why I think the sound that they heard was a recorded knock playing from a cassette tape and not a real knock at all.
unsuspectingvisitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 05:42   Link #29691
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by unsuspectingvisitor View Post
The knock that they heard came from the cassette tape just like what Erika suggested in her blue truth. The red truth about misinterpreting the knock was just a dirty trick so that Erika will dropped the idea of a recorded knock.
Oho, I hadn't thought of that. I agree - Erika blue truth that Somebody outside the mansion (herself, George, Jessica, Maria, Kumasawa, Nanjo, or Godha) arranged for a recording of a knock to play should still be valid. It would mean the people in the mansion HEARD the knocking noise, but due to the red truth, could tell that it was fake.

So they heard it, and would've been like "Where is that recording of a knock sound coming from?" or something like that. There are two issues still present, though. The first is that Erika's truth about the knock failed to account for the letter as well. The knocking sound is allegedly how they found the letter.

The second problem is that this view is still along the lines of people lying, or the scene containing blatant falsehood. In the scene, everyone responded to the knock as though it were real, and presumably reported it as such to Erika later when she gathered her detailed account of the nights events. Sooo, "everyone heard a knocking sound, but knew it was fake" still seems much more complex than necessary, over there was no knock at all.

Also, about the nature of meaningless red statements that's been going on ... well, I can accept that a lot of really shady things can probably be said in red (though I'm agreeing much much more with Jan-Poo than Renall here), in the context of the narrative, the human side HAS always had the right to ask for clarification of meaning and intent. That could POTENTIALLY be an eternal check as the two sides quibble over semantics endlessly ("Oh no,I was using 'key' to mean 'ancient babylonian language ciphers!"), but thankfully Ryu never takes it that far, 'cause it'd be annoying and boring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Judoh View Post
how now, brown cow?
At least two people on this Rokkenjima KNOW about the robot cow, too!
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 05:46   Link #29692
GreyZone
"Senior" "Member"
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by unsuspectingvisitor View Post
About the knock, there another answer I can think of.

The knock that they heard came from the cassette tape just like what Erika suggested in her blue truth. The red truth about misinterpreting the knock was just a dirty trick so that Erika will dropped the idea of a recorded knock. I still don't get it myself but I'll try to explain. That red truth about misinterpreting a knock is just a farce. Noone inside the dining hall misinterpret the knock as a real knock because when Kanon opened the door, He didn't see anyone on the hallway. It was said by Lambda that the real knock she was talking about was a direct knock. It's when a human knock directly on the door. The hallway was empty and It was even said in red that noone except the three people on the second floor and those people in the dining hall existed inside the mansion at that time. There's also this red truth.
"In short, this means it was impossible for any character within the mansion to be the source of a knocking SOUND. ......And 'any character' refers even to unobserved people that no one has noticed."
This means that the knock that they heard didn't come from a human knocking directly on the door of the dining hall. It came from something else so there's no way that they would misinterpret it as a real knock.
That's why I think the sound that they heard was a recorded knock playing from a cassette tape and not a real knock at all.
Was such a recorder ever mentioned in EP5, aside from when Erika suggested it? Because if not, then it violates Knox's 8th. It is forbidden for the case to be resolved with clues that are not presented.
GreyZone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 06:02   Link #29693
GuestSpeaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Was such a recorder ever mentioned in EP5
For the first time ever the adults turned on a cassette player or something to make sure there was a record of the conversation and what was said for later, it was mentioned earlier.
GuestSpeaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 09:03   Link #29694
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jan-Poo View Post
Your interpretation is bordering with a non congnitivist philosophy, and that's quite debatable in my opinion. You are falling in the same philosphical fluff that defies common sense that you criticized in Haguruma.
It has nothing to do with that and everything to do with logic. Not "logic the thing you use to think" but "logic the proposition-testing system of philosophy." I agree with you that a nonexistent thing doesn't have a color. But, formally, any statement about the properties of something whose properties cannot be observed or asserted conclusively can't simply be dismissed as false, because it would make its negation true, and its negation isn't true either. This is part of what Russell was talking about; normally, if we say the cow isn't brown, then we know the negation is true that the cow is some color other than brown. The cow exists, and we can verify that statement, so we don't run into any problems. And even when speaking abstractly about things that exist, we know we at least could test them, so we know that either the proposition is true or its negation is true.

The whole issue crops up when you're discussing a thing that isn't. If a knock really happens, then you can describe what the knock was and wasn't with ease. But if a knock doesn't happen, how can you describe it? It's like the old "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" koan. You can't describe what it sounds like, but at the same time you can't describe what it doesn't sound like, because it's impossible (well, it actually isn't impossible... but you know what I and the ancient philosophers mean).

However, describing how people would react to a thing that isn't is still perfectly fine, since you can just negate it to the case of how they wouldn't react since the thing didn't happen. So most of the stuff about the knock never runs up against this because it talks about what people did or didn't do or would or wouldn't do if a knock did happen or was made, which it is never actually stated that it is.

It is implied, but rereading the red I think this is a translation issue and LyricalAura is correct that the definite article "the" should be stripped from any red about "a knock." You can easily rewrite every red about the knock with "a knock" or "a knocking sound" instead of "the knock," thus entirely decoupling the notion that Lambda was ever even suggesting it was an actual event (existent or otherwise) from the text as presented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Also, about the nature of meaningless red statements that's been going on ... well, I can accept that a lot of really shady things can probably be said in red (though I'm agreeing much much more with Jan-Poo than Renall here), in the context of the narrative, the human side HAS always had the right to ask for clarification of meaning and intent. That could POTENTIALLY be an eternal check as the two sides quibble over semantics endlessly ("Oh no,I was using 'key' to mean 'ancient babylonian language ciphers!"), but thankfully Ryu never takes it that far, 'cause it'd be annoying and boring.
Yes, the human side has the right to ask for it. They just don't unless it's convenient for the author. That's part of the frustration I have with the story. Especially in Dawn, where Erika obsessively asks for clarification of every detail and definition until at some point she just stops doing that even though it would help her.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 15:13   Link #29695
unsuspectingvisitor
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Oho, I hadn't thought of that. I agree - Erika blue truth that Somebody outside the mansion (herself, George, Jessica, Maria, Kumasawa, Nanjo, or Godha) arranged for a recording of a knock to play should still be valid. It would mean the people in the mansion HEARD the knocking noise, but due to the red truth, could tell that it was fake.

So they heard it, and would've been like "Where is that recording of a knock sound coming from?" or something like that. There are two issues still present, though. The first is that Erika's truth about the knock failed to account for the letter as well. The knocking sound is allegedly how they found the letter.

The second problem is that this view is still along the lines of people lying, or the scene containing blatant falsehood. In the scene, everyone responded to the knock as though it were real, and presumably reported it as such to Erika later when she gathered her detailed account of the nights events. Sooo, "everyone heard a knocking sound, but knew it was fake" still seems much more complex than necessary, over there was no knock at all.
I didn't say that Erika's blue truth was still valid. I'm just saying that she got the recorded knock thing right. Her blue truth was shot down because she thought it was someone from outside the mansion who setup the cassette tape , she didn't even suspected those inside the mansion.

there's a possibility that they interpreted the sound after the incident. It just wouldn't make sense at all that they can figured out it was a recorded tape the instant they heard the knocking sounds. It's only natural for them to suspect that someone was knocking behind the door because the knocking sound came from the door or atleast near the door and they didn't know yet the whereabouts of everyone inside the mansion at that time. So they will still suspect that someone other than the people inside the dining hall knock. But they found out afterwards that no one

Kanon and Shannon setup the cassette tape and since Lambda said in red that no one inside the mansion placed the letter in the hallway then the letter wasn't in the hallway to begin with. Kanon just lied about finding the letter.

I don't like that solution where everyone lied about the whole incident just to troll on Erika. It not a fantasy scene because we didn't see any Golden Butterflies around or any fantasy creature. Why didn't Lambda shown us a scene where Beatrice was knocking behind the door and placing the letter then? It would make more sense to me since we can see her hanging around Natsuhi Alot of times in this episode. But If by chance that everyone lied, how can you explain that scene where everyone looked at the door if the knock didn't happened at all?
unsuspectingvisitor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 15:33   Link #29696
Renall
BUY MY BOOK!!!
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Actually, it'd be quite easy to tell the difference between a physical knock and a recorded knock. In an old mansion-style house with heavy wooden doors, a real knock will resonate quite deeply through the wood, causing a perceptible thump that a tape recording will be able to replicate only in sound (since the tape won't cause the door to vibrate). So the idea that no one would mistake a real knock for a recorded one is fairly sound. Even a layman would be able to sense immediately that they were not witnessing an actual knock.

The question then I guess would be why lie about it.
__________________
Redaction of the Golden Witch
I submit that a murder was committed in 1996.
This murder was a "copycat" crime inspired by our tales of 1986.
This story is a redacted confession.

Blog (VN DL) - YouTube Playlists
Battler Solves The Logic Error
Renall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 17:41   Link #29697
Kealym
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by unsuspectingvisitor View Post
I didn't say that Erika's blue truth was still valid. I'm just saying that she got the recorded knock thing right. Her blue truth was shot down because she thought it was someone from outside the mansion who setup the cassette tape , she didn't even suspected those inside the mansion.

there's a possibility that they interpreted the sound after the incident. It just wouldn't make sense at all that they can figured out it was a recorded tape the instant they heard the knocking sounds. It's only natural for them to suspect that someone was knocking behind the door because the knocking sound came from the door or atleast near the door and they didn't know yet the whereabouts of everyone inside the mansion at that time. So they will still suspect that someone other than the people inside the dining hall knock. But they found out afterwards that no one

Kanon and Shannon setup the cassette tape and since Lambda said in red that no one inside the mansion placed the letter in the hallway then the letter wasn't in the hallway to begin with. Kanon just lied about finding the letter.

I don't like that solution where everyone lied about the whole incident just to troll on Erika. It not a fantasy scene because we didn't see any Golden Butterflies around or any fantasy creature. Why didn't Lambda shown us a scene where Beatrice was knocking behind the door and placing the letter then? It would make more sense to me since we can see her hanging around Natsuhi Alot of times in this episode. But If by chance that everyone lied, how can you explain that scene where everyone looked at the door if the knock didn't happened at all?
I'm not sure I follow - her blue truth is still potentially valid, she just stopped supporting it after a misleading red. It's almost as if she said "Kinzo is in this room!", recieved "Kinzo isn't under the bed!" as a response, and for some reason went "Oh, I guess he isn't in the room after all."

Also, Erika DID suspect those inside the mansion - she investigated them first. In response, she got :
Neither Krauss nor Natsuhi nor Genji knocked!
This isn't the limited meaning of them knocking on the door, okay? It means they didn't use a pillar to transmit the sound or push the play button on a cassette tape they'd recorded or create that knock sound by any means! Of course, this applies to direct, indirect, intentional, coincidental, and unintentional means!
Let it be known that at 24:00, except for Krauss, Natsuhi, and Genji in the second floor corridor and all of the people in the dining hall, no humans existed inside the mansion.

Let it be known that in addition to Krauss, Natsuhi, and Genji, none of those in the dining hall made the knock. In this sense, 'knock' includes all direct, indirect, intentional, unintentional, and coincidental events that could create a knocking sound.
In short, this means it was impossible for any character within the mansion to be the source of a knocking SOUND. ......And 'any character' refers even to unobserved people that no one has noticed.


Which altogether amounts to, more or less, "you cannot be inside the mansion AND produce a knocking noise of any sort", which is why she just hopped to suspecting the Guesthouse group. Furthermore, there are plenty, PLENTY of scenes that tell misleading narratives that don't involve golden butterflies, or Beatrice doing something hugely magical. And I wouldn't personally say it was "just to troll Erika", either. I've always thought End was a mostly broken/incomplete game, anyways, and is intentionally nonsensical in places.

Also, while "everyone lied" isn't really the most ... elegant of solutions, it's hard to deny that it's sort of Beato's M.O. There's precedence, at least for that. I agree that it's worth questioning why they would've lied about it ... but I'd also say it's worth noting that nobody ever brings it up again ever. XD
Kealym is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-17, 17:50   Link #29698
Thunder Book
Endless Member
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
I don't think so much thought has ever been put into a knock on a door before, nor will there be ever again. XD
Thunder Book is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-18, 01:09   Link #29699
Wanderer
Goat
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Gnawing away at Rokkenjima
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
And even when speaking abstractly about things that exist, we know we at least could test them, so we know that either the proposition is true or its negation is true.
Well, you can also sidestep the problem by saying that descriptions of non-existent things (beyond asserting their non-existence) are an exception in that they are always false regardless of the typical dynamic between the proposition and it's negation.

But can you define the rules of logic arbitrarily (i.e. is there more than one rules set for logic?)? It's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
It is implied, but rereading the red I think this is a translation issue and LyricalAura is correct
Yes, she is. Although the letter is actually referred to as "that letter", (which is not a translation issue), so evidently at least "that letter" actually existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
Especially in Dawn, where Erika obsessively asks for clarification of every detail and definition until at some point she just stops doing that even though it would help her.
Sometimes I wonder if it's just because Erika couldn't go any deeper, by the limits of her very nature. Basically, she's got a brain for "Mystery", but ShKanon isn't really Mystery so she can't comprehend it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kealym View Post
Also, while "everyone lied" isn't really the most ... elegant of solutions, it's hard to deny that it's sort of Beato's M.O.
Although in this case Beato's not the GM.

The clock tampering idea for the knock is totally cool, and would be a better solution if it was just that one puzzle by itself, but for the FT murders there aren't better options over mass lying by mostly the same set of people who were at the conference. Well, at least that I know of. I would certainly like to hear one.

I have to say though, it seems clear to me that RK07 went out of his way to not confirm in red either that there really was a knock in the first place or that the hypothetical knock actually occurred at midnight. Interesting, that.
Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-07-18, 01:19   Link #29700
Jan-Poo
別にいいけど
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: forever lost inside a logic error
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renall View Post
the cow isn't brown, then we know the negation is true that the cow is some color other than brown. The cow exists, and we can verify that statement, so we don't run into any problems. And even when speaking abstractly about things that exist, we know we at least could test them, so we know that either the proposition is true or its negation is true.
But wait are you really sure about that?
To me this sounds the same as stating that if I say "Mark doesn't have a degree in astrophisics" then the statement "Mark has a degree in something other than astrophisics" is true.
I think that this example makes clear that there is fallacy here and that's the assumption that the negation of a specific quality of the degree the subject has implies that he still has a degree of a different quality. But we cannot deduce that by the original negation at all since the possibility that Mark has no degree at all exists.

The case of the cow you mentioned is tricky because you already know by previous knowledge that a cow must have a color. However suppose you are an artificial intelligence with absolutely no knowledge of the concept of cows. Could you logically make that deduction? I think not.

At any rate if we do not possess the information of whether the cow exists or not then assuming that it must have a color is wrong. Which by extension means that in front of the sentence the cow isn't brown we cannot deduce that a cow that might or might not exist must have a color other than brown.
__________________


Last edited by Jan-Poo; 2012-07-18 at 01:31.
Jan-Poo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.