Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   Does God Exist? (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   answer "does x exist" using only "and"s and "or"s (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17297)

midway 03-09-2015 04:47 PM

answer "does x exist" using only "and"s and "or"s
Because these functions are more basic than yes/no or maybe. "Does x and/or -x exist?".... the premise being you maybe can't consider god without the devil and you certainly can't tell which one is at play either, it is a case of forming a decidable question. Of course, guesses are all good, i guess.
Small children soon learn how important the "if" function is, but can live up to about five years old without it, firmly in the cradle of now. A whole lot of programming can be done with "if", "and" and "or", though "yes/no" can also be a workhorse in logic. The point is that no one ought to be forced into a yes/no proposition like the Spanish Inquisition, or catholic confession. Whenever the god question irks me, I try to remember the notion of Santa Claus... that doesn't bug me near as much but it is pure delusion imo.
Different/Same is more basic than yes/no. It's the "not and/or"NANDOR" chip that is used most in computer design, not the yes/no chip.

midway 03-09-2015 04:51 PM

It can be seen right away that “and” is more inclusive than “or”. More like a maybe. An odd valued logic has maybe as it’s central premise but is useless when it comes to hammering out reason traditionally. Yes/no is even and has no maybe; it’s the excluded middle and seems to be reserved for fact not speculation, the function “or” has this yes/no attribute. The function checks to see if the bits are different,whereas the “and” function checks to see if they are the same. Logical and/or may seem a little different than it’s uses in common day life. “And” is like the list that holds everything that or writes ; the carrier and modulator in sound synthesis. And they are wired somewhat differently in electronics to perform the hardware version of logical and/or. they seem to come along with and maybe before yes,no and maybe.

No goes with anything. By far the word we are most familiar with by the time we go to school is the word no. For example,
“I’d do anything for another cookie.”
Another more sinister voice says,
The first voice says, frightened:

We play games with negation, so necessary for paradox.”To be or not to be.”And having known four people who committed suicide, I’d have to say that the not function ought not to get out of hand. Nor should the yes function. That leaves maybe, and the functions “and” and “or”.
been “linear A” or “linear B”, either of these ancient uncrackable language codes that did not have an “and”. The third element was somehow the combination of the previous two elements. This would severely limit what could be said. These languages have not been deciphered yet but are believed to have been used/developed by women on a mediterranian island.

The search for extraterrestrial intelligence relies on the fact that any intelligent language will contain repetition, for example the word and will appear many times and is evidence of intelligence at work in the code.

Smellyoldgit 03-09-2015 06:53 PM


midway wrote (Post 682909)
..... any intelligent language will contain repetition, .....

I must remember this after the 57th ''Allahu Akbar" in an ISIS beheading video ....

midway 03-10-2015 01:03 AM

glaring omission
The thesaurus holds that existence preceded relatedness, and purports to be the natural order of thought, originally 14 elements from Roget blossomed into well over a thousand currently. Quantum language rules disagrees with this order. The observer must be accounted for, so that the statement "the coat is red" ought to be replaced with "the coat appears red".
Children and others have problems with the verb "to be" when it is used rampantly. The word "is" can be a real irritant. Rank imposes order. The boss tells you "what is." This explains the explosion of autism to me. Linear scales of rank, attributes are very harsh, unidimensional. The surface of a table is two dimensional, rank is lost ; there is no "more important spot on the table" but there is "in line". If we only regard the attribute of health then yes we can all be put on a scale of rank and order, but if two dimensions are considered, ie. health and wealth, then rank does not seem so important.
"E Prime" is a form of language that avoids the use of the first element of the thesaurus, existence. It is used in university papers and is considered less clumsy and more accurate than always using the verb "to be". Maybe existence ought to be the last element of the thesaurus. Number two seems to do as much business. I am reminded of the Hebrew story of the alphabet, explaining that God was so pleased with the order of the rest of it [bcdefg, bayt gimmel dallet hay etc] that he rewarded humans by giving them the letter A [aleph]. Godel's "incompleteness theorem" holds that there are always elements in a list that cannot be validated by the other members.
There's one in every crowd, a troublemaker. In the thesaurus it is the first one, existence that causes all the trouble.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:45 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.