flannel jesus

Seems like it assumes the thing it's meant to prove. Seems circular to me.

Anyway, I consider the thread resolved. Corvus sees that it's a Fallacy, he's agreed with Tim about the Truth table which illustrates that it's a Fall...

But people have been telling you that for weeks already...

Oh wow, that's amazing that you're saying that. In this post you call it a deduction - you use the word "deduces". https://thephilosophyforum.com/disc...

but you haven't described any process that could happen. Like, we know how it could happen with dominoes, because we can concretely set up that proces...

yes, but a series of dominos don't implement a process, like the process that can determine if a number is prime, unless they're set up in a specific ...

How would that look?

Here's my proof: Let G be the claim that Goldbachs Conjecture is true. Furthermore, we add as a premise that G is not proven, and also ~G is not prove...

How about this: Goldbachs Conjecture We've got two claims here: GC is true, or GC is false. One of those two claims is an unproven truth. The other on...

so you won't be able to prove it if I can't name one?

what process do you think shifting sand is implementing that's conscious?

Can you prove it? Can you prove there aren't any?

oh well then, in principle... MAYBE Though I'm partial to the idea that, rather than dominos being conscious, or a computer being conscious, or a brai...

have fun

How in the world do you figure that? You don't think there are any unproven truths?

I think if it can't, it's because what other people have mentioned - the dominos fall and don't pick themselves back up. Consciousness might require a...

From what truth table? Would you mind posting the table here?

So the proof that you posted here then: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/889798 That's not based on logical laws, that's... what, the...

Does the article say "proof" and "truth" are synonyms? Because that's what you're saying. I COMPLETELY AGREE that it's not how epistemology works. Tha...

for example?

I think classical logic very much has hard coded laws. Basic logic very much has hard coded laws. Logical proofs are a sequence of steps using hard co...

No, unfortunately it doesn't. Your use of various terms in this conversation has seemed wildly and irreconcilably inconsitsent to me. First you say, i...

This starts out sounding like a 'yes' but ends up sounding like a 'no'. What's an example where (A implies B) is true, but (~B implies ~A) is not true...

When did PROOF become the T condition? T stands for "true", not "proof". Do you think JTB stands for "Justified Proved Belief"?

But if it's true, then it's justified, right? That's what you were saying yesterday. If you believe something that's true, then it's justified. — flan...

So do you agree that, if one accepts a statement (A -> B), then according to classical logic one must always accept the contraposition, (~B -> ~A)?

You said it yourself here. If it's true, then I'm justified.

But that's not what you said before. You said before that a belief is justified if it's true. If I believe it, and it's true, then it's justified, reg...

If it's raining, then the ground is wet. The ground is not wet, so it's not raining. This doesn't seem like it depends on anything to me - if the firs...

Do you have an example for this? An example where a implies b, but it's not true that not b implies not a.

yeah, physicists can believe in just about anything - the only thing they're almost guaranteed to believe in is the efficacy of learning about the wor...

if it depends, I would love to see some examples. I would love to see an example from you where the answer is "yes" and an example from you where the ...

Awesome, and this one? And is the same thing true about the contrapositive? For every (a implies b) it's always true that (not b implies not a), corre...

I need clear, unambiguous answers. Preferably Yes or No. One thing at a time So do you think any time you have (a implies b) , it's always true that (...

I think I misread this before. You're saying you "don't have to apply it", but you always can right? You CAN always apply it, because it's always true...

. Ignore this, see next post

there's more than one flavour of random. That's why I'm comparing it to a seeded random generator, and bringing up chaos - chaotic deterministic syste...

What's the assumption? Specifically.

Does (a implies b) always lead to (not a implies not b), or only sometimes?

wait you edited this response, we have to go back. We need clarity on this conversation or nothing will work. It either always applies, or it doesn't ...

do you have examples where it doesn't apply? Examples of a implies b where is not true that not b implies not a

Do you also agree with the contrapositive rule, which states that if (a implies b), then (not b implies not a)?

That sounds like you're confirming that yes, it's always applicable any time you have (a implies b), am I interpreting that correctly?

Would you mind explicitly stating if every (a implies b) also leads to (not a implies not b), or can you only do that for specific (a implies b) state...

if you agree with corvus, I wouldn't mind talking to you about why. If you disagree, it would be appreciated if you expressed briefly why but, ideally...

they're random in one sense and not in another. They're not RANDOM random, but they're distributed as if they were random and unpredictable ahead of t...

Equally rigourously if you drop the T though. The rigor is all in the J - the J is where all our confidence in the T comes from. If it's rigor we're l...

"Materialism" means two different things. A quick google gives me this: 1. a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more im...

Yeah, that's kinda what I mean by usable. You can find the information in there, *if you already know exactly what the information you're looking for ...

I am not sure a random number contains "information" necessarily just because some of its random sequence matches something else. Information is only ...