-
OK, it's on.
Binary logic propositions applied to non-atomic elements
- Thread starter Rebis
- Start date
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
God is not made of atoms.
Two attributes of God are most true.
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Two attributes of God are most true.
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Ex-User (14663)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:07 PM
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2017
- Messages
- 2,939
Chance in the frequentist sense, Bayesian or something else? The one with God doesn’t really make sense for frequentist probability since it’s not subject to frequency.
Other than that I don’t understand the question.
Other than that I don’t understand the question.
Rebis
Blessed are the hearts that can bend
Existence of something that is unknown i.e god, should not be given equal probability to something we know: no one has any evidence of god directly communicating with us. Just because something can either exist or not exist doesn't infer they are of equal probabilities. Instead of a proposition having a reasonable premise which would assess the probabilistic outcome people create hypothetical dualities which ensure a 50/50 probability, in all cases inconsequential of evidence so it wouldn't be bayesian probability. I would call this pseudo statistics:
Let's say we had a study that calculated the probability of an event happening as occuring 84 out of 100 times. Then we extrapolate that probability through the person that made the claim, we contrary his point by saying "Either you're correct or I am, 50/50 chance" This applies to the second example. we shouldn't apply binary logic with both options having equal probability if the subject matter isn't atomic: The probability of an event occurring consists of quite a few variables, all which determine the outcome. The outcomes are binary but the probabilities aren't inherently equal.
We can easily transmute calculated probabilities to a context that isn't relevant to the initial conditions that determined the probability, but yet it still seems logically sound in the phrasing of the statement. Binary logic should only be used to assess outcomes, it doesn't infer the probability of those outcomes.
Let's say we had a study that calculated the probability of an event happening as occuring 84 out of 100 times. Then we extrapolate that probability through the person that made the claim, we contrary his point by saying "Either you're correct or I am, 50/50 chance" This applies to the second example. we shouldn't apply binary logic with both options having equal probability if the subject matter isn't atomic: The probability of an event occurring consists of quite a few variables, all which determine the outcome. The outcomes are binary but the probabilities aren't inherently equal.
We can easily transmute calculated probabilities to a context that isn't relevant to the initial conditions that determined the probability, but yet it still seems logically sound in the phrasing of the statement. Binary logic should only be used to assess outcomes, it doesn't infer the probability of those outcomes.
Marbles
What would Feynman do?
Flip a coin. If tails, Rebis the Leprechaun will be smitten.
You're right, of course. Did some recent discussion you had prompt this thread? Because I think whoever you talked to was dropped on the head as a baby.
You're right, of course. Did some recent discussion you had prompt this thread? Because I think whoever you talked to was dropped on the head as a baby.
Marbles
What would Feynman do?
Actually me odds are much worse... I mean, there are millions of gods, only one of which must have conversed with you for me to be wrong. The odds that you didnt talk to a god is actually one to millions. The chance that there is no god is basically infinitely small.
Ex-User (14663)
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:07 PM
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2017
- Messages
- 2,939
why would anyone say there's a 50/50 chance of an event happening if that event's probability is 0.84? That's like saying 2 = 3 (or in this particular case, 0.5 = 0.84).
Rebis
Blessed are the hearts that can bend
It's the easiest form of reasoning that requires no analysis.
The numbers were just used as an anecdote, it's common for people not to account for variables and give a bogus statistic. While I can't imagine anyone would say there's a 50/50 chance if the probability of 0.84, people would say they have an equal chance to something that is determined by probability which they just haven't analysed. In other words they ignore probability for a simple binary outcome. Binary is an easier model of understanding but its used in conjunction with probability, they don't complement each other.
The numbers were just used as an anecdote, it's common for people not to account for variables and give a bogus statistic. While I can't imagine anyone would say there's a 50/50 chance if the probability of 0.84, people would say they have an equal chance to something that is determined by probability which they just haven't analysed. In other words they ignore probability for a simple binary outcome. Binary is an easier model of understanding but its used in conjunction with probability, they don't complement each other.
Marbles
What would Feynman do?
It is a slightly diversion, but I really hate the idea that two people in a relationship will be right and wrong an equal amount of times in relationship disagreements. It basically means you are better off always acting like an asshole, because your partner will have to meet you half way.
Say I'm selling you a Big Mac. We've already agreed that the transaction will happen, but we are each equally right, so I'm gonna start my haggling at a bazillion dollars, and you are gonna meet me halfway. Bumbumbumbadum, I'm lovin' it.
Wait, I already said that.
Say I'm selling you a Big Mac. We've already agreed that the transaction will happen, but we are each equally right, so I'm gonna start my haggling at a bazillion dollars, and you are gonna meet me halfway. Bumbumbumbadum, I'm lovin' it.
Wait, I already said that.
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
50/50 chance I am a philosophical zombie.
scorpiomover
The little professor
- Local time
- Today 6:07 PM
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,383
Then it means that whoever you date would be always acting like an ahole. 50% of the time, she'd be an ahole, and 50% of the time, she'd be acting like an ahole that was also wrong. How long would you stay with such a person?
If a Big Mac is worth $5, then you're claiming that there are 2 transactions:
one to buy a Big Mac for $5, and
the other for the buyer to give you a bazillion-5 dollars. the first was agreed.
The second is as real as the Leprechaun at the bottom of your garden that said that underneath your house is a pot of gold.
Marbles
What would Feynman do?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It is a terrible system for diplomacy.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if what people express is considered always equally right, then negotiations will be ludicrous. We'd always have to meet halfway. You'd have to start by demanding a bazillion dollars to take the Big Mac off my hands, so we could meet in the middle somewhere at the reasonable 5 dollars.
scorpiomover
The little professor
- Local time
- Today 6:07 PM
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 3,383
If you're right or wrong, that won't hurt someone else. But if you're an ahole, it will. Being an ahole all of the time is like going up to bears and stabbing them in the toes.
Sounds exactly like haggling. In many cultures, people ENJOY haggling. If you haggle, the seller will give you tea, food and a discount, because you gave the seller a good time.
Marbles
What would Feynman do?
I am not advocating being an a-hole. I am dissuading it, saying that the idea that people are necessarily right "half the time" would result in shitty behavior.
"Well, wife... You were right about me forgetting to put the toilet seat down yesterday. Since it's my turn to be right today, I will plow through all the ladies of the local bar. I'd say that is quite upstanding behavior, wouldn't you?". And indeed, then she would start doing the same thing, and everyone has a terrible time. Except the ladies at the local bar, if you know what I mean, huhuhuh.. huh.
"Well, wife... You were right about me forgetting to put the toilet seat down yesterday. Since it's my turn to be right today, I will plow through all the ladies of the local bar. I'd say that is quite upstanding behavior, wouldn't you?". And indeed, then she would start doing the same thing, and everyone has a terrible time. Except the ladies at the local bar, if you know what I mean, huhuhuh.. huh.
onesteptwostep
Junior Hegelian
- Local time
- Tomorrow 3:07 AM
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2014
- Messages
- 4,253
Well, it isn't reasoning, in the first place- is what I would argue. A statement about will or will not something will happen is not a statement of probability, and a statement of probability is not a type of reasoning. A statement of will something will happen or not also is not a type reasoning.
If you fashioned out the argument it would go something like: either God exists or he doesn't, therefore if I flip this coin, he does or does not exist. Or, either God exists or he doesn't, therefore he exists. (Or, either God exists or he doesn't, therefore he does not exists).
The 'argument' doesn't follow.
It's tautological if it's supposed to be logic in any sense. A statement is a statement. Reasoning usually depends on several statements.
EndogenousRebel
Even a mean person is trying their best, right?
People should state the evidence for their "computations" rather than their computations outright.
4+4 = 8 100% of the time
If I just said = 8 100% of the time, there is something missing here isn't there? There are many different ways to get to 8 and saying how would definitely give more perspective than simply saying what you think the probability of something is.
Sure, it's more work and you may be saying more about yourself than you might want to, but if you're in good company it shouldn't matter. Further more if you state your evidence it may open the door to someone else perhaps adding to and correcting your computation. You would be injecting the chance for dialectical discussion, which is bad ass.
In any case our calculations with things that are too abstract and or complex should never be finite numbers, and people that do are either really smart or really stupid/misguided. I would elect to say things like "thats likely" or for emphasis "that very likely". Or whatever variation of this you want. But peoples fucking word is a dime a dozen so whatever, if the don't know you enough they probably aren't paying attention to any nuance you're adding unless they know to do otherwise, same thing vice-versa.
4+4 = 8 100% of the time
If I just said = 8 100% of the time, there is something missing here isn't there? There are many different ways to get to 8 and saying how would definitely give more perspective than simply saying what you think the probability of something is.
Sure, it's more work and you may be saying more about yourself than you might want to, but if you're in good company it shouldn't matter. Further more if you state your evidence it may open the door to someone else perhaps adding to and correcting your computation. You would be injecting the chance for dialectical discussion, which is bad ass.
In any case our calculations with things that are too abstract and or complex should never be finite numbers, and people that do are either really smart or really stupid/misguided. I would elect to say things like "thats likely" or for emphasis "that very likely". Or whatever variation of this you want. But peoples fucking word is a dime a dozen so whatever, if the don't know you enough they probably aren't paying attention to any nuance you're adding unless they know to do otherwise, same thing vice-versa.
DoIMustHaveAnUsername?
Active Member
- Local time
- Today 6:07 PM
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2016
- Messages
- 282
Neither do I see binary logic here nor do I see non-atomic propositions.
Your examples seems to be either parital ("i am right" - about what?) to exactly translate into a complete proposition to evaluate its atomicity or quite atomic "God exists".
Further more none of your posts has to do anything with binary logic (propositional logic, and stuffs usually with AND, OR operators). You are just randomly throwing around irrelevant terminologies.
What you are dealing with are probabilities, and how to go about it depends on what framework you are taking.
If you are taking a sort of bayesian approach, then probability is interpreted as the "degree of one's belief". That is it's subjective, it doesn't tell about the objective chance (which is either 1 or 0 in a deterministic world) of an event rather to what what degree you are certain that the event will occur. Of course that doesn't mean you go about it randomly. There are systematic rules to abide by (for example bayes rule).
However, bayes rule requires having some prior probability distribution over the concerned state of affairs.
And often used prior is uniform distribution (give the same probability to every possibility) --- often justified by the principle of indifference ("If you have no evidence to believe in either X or not-X you shouldn't lean towards either belief --- in other words assign 50/50 degree of certainty to either beliefs - it's similar to adopting an agnostic position. In case there are three possibilities x,y,z it would be 1/3 to all).
In practice uniform priors may not be always the best choice. Often we may choose Gaussian or something else depending on the domain.
In your cases, starting from a uniform prior is reasonable - giving 50/50 to both beliefs, but that's only reasonable when you are completely ignorant of the matter you have no evidence to either side. This is often not true.
Depending on evidence and priors over hypotheses, evidence and everything, the posterior is updated and changed.
So saying 50/50 after seeing 84/100 is neither bayesian nor frequentists (there are other interpretations too).
However even as a starting point, even when you are completely ignorant, 50/50 or a uniform prior isn't necessarily the best even in your OP examples. For example, often we may want to take an inductive prior, and include some elements of Occam's Razor in our prior. There are mathematically formalized versions of such available now, in the form of algorithmic complexity.
Priors over hypothesis can be defined in terms of algorithmic probability (related to algorithmic complexity, kolmogorov complexity).
While philosophically justifying them can be tricky, it is quite practical to use some law of parsimony for day to day life. And algorithmic information theory provides some way to formalize is more robustly than relying on wishy washy intuitions and unclear notions about "simplicity".
In summary,
(1) the matter of choosing priors is tricky
(2) uniform prior is kinda reasonable, not the worst one can do (following the idea "we shouldn't have a special bias towards any side, if we have no evidence for any of the sides").
But often you have more to go on. For example, in case of Gods, there are lots of evidence, arguments, counter-arguments, and stuff to consider and evaluate carefully regarding if one should still keep on 50/50 or not.
(3) Things are different when considering posterior estimation. Posterior estimation also depends on the data and evidence - if they doesn't fit well with the prior (as in the case of 84/100 --- it doesn't fit that well with the 50/50 prior ----though 50/50 prior still may be right but a bit unlikely and would become more unlikely as the sample size increases and it's still far from 50/50) and so the posterior has to be updated accordingly, you cannot rationally arbitrarily still stick to the initial prior.
(4) Nothing to do with binary logic directly.
(5) If you are taking the Bayesian route, then all that these number tells is your epistemic status not the ontological status of the events.
Your examples seems to be either parital ("i am right" - about what?) to exactly translate into a complete proposition to evaluate its atomicity or quite atomic "God exists".
Further more none of your posts has to do anything with binary logic (propositional logic, and stuffs usually with AND, OR operators). You are just randomly throwing around irrelevant terminologies.
What you are dealing with are probabilities, and how to go about it depends on what framework you are taking.
If you are taking a sort of bayesian approach, then probability is interpreted as the "degree of one's belief". That is it's subjective, it doesn't tell about the objective chance (which is either 1 or 0 in a deterministic world) of an event rather to what what degree you are certain that the event will occur. Of course that doesn't mean you go about it randomly. There are systematic rules to abide by (for example bayes rule).
However, bayes rule requires having some prior probability distribution over the concerned state of affairs.
And often used prior is uniform distribution (give the same probability to every possibility) --- often justified by the principle of indifference ("If you have no evidence to believe in either X or not-X you shouldn't lean towards either belief --- in other words assign 50/50 degree of certainty to either beliefs - it's similar to adopting an agnostic position. In case there are three possibilities x,y,z it would be 1/3 to all).
In practice uniform priors may not be always the best choice. Often we may choose Gaussian or something else depending on the domain.
In your cases, starting from a uniform prior is reasonable - giving 50/50 to both beliefs, but that's only reasonable when you are completely ignorant of the matter you have no evidence to either side. This is often not true.
Depending on evidence and priors over hypotheses, evidence and everything, the posterior is updated and changed.
So saying 50/50 after seeing 84/100 is neither bayesian nor frequentists (there are other interpretations too).
However even as a starting point, even when you are completely ignorant, 50/50 or a uniform prior isn't necessarily the best even in your OP examples. For example, often we may want to take an inductive prior, and include some elements of Occam's Razor in our prior. There are mathematically formalized versions of such available now, in the form of algorithmic complexity.
Priors over hypothesis can be defined in terms of algorithmic probability (related to algorithmic complexity, kolmogorov complexity).
While philosophically justifying them can be tricky, it is quite practical to use some law of parsimony for day to day life. And algorithmic information theory provides some way to formalize is more robustly than relying on wishy washy intuitions and unclear notions about "simplicity".
In summary,
(1) the matter of choosing priors is tricky
(2) uniform prior is kinda reasonable, not the worst one can do (following the idea "we shouldn't have a special bias towards any side, if we have no evidence for any of the sides").
But often you have more to go on. For example, in case of Gods, there are lots of evidence, arguments, counter-arguments, and stuff to consider and evaluate carefully regarding if one should still keep on 50/50 or not.
(3) Things are different when considering posterior estimation. Posterior estimation also depends on the data and evidence - if they doesn't fit well with the prior (as in the case of 84/100 --- it doesn't fit that well with the 50/50 prior ----though 50/50 prior still may be right but a bit unlikely and would become more unlikely as the sample size increases and it's still far from 50/50) and so the posterior has to be updated accordingly, you cannot rationally arbitrarily still stick to the initial prior.
(4) Nothing to do with binary logic directly.
(5) If you are taking the Bayesian route, then all that these number tells is your epistemic status not the ontological status of the events.
dragula
Member
- Local time
- Today 7:07 PM
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 81
I'd say about 50/50 chance.
what
Redshirt
- Local time
- Tomorrow 5:07 AM
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2019
- Messages
- 6
this 50/50 reaoning is a bit crude.
it is based only on the number of outcomes (even then, one could argue that there is more) without actually adressing the likelyhood of each outcome. it is akin to saying there is a 50/50 chance i will be struck by lightning because there are only two outcomes. given that there is no solid, irrefutable evidence of a god (and by an extension that means the chances of a god existing when we haven't found one compared to the abundance of mortal things would be increadibly small) i choose to believe in scientific determinism. in many ways it offers a simpler, if harsher, reality. and if i'm wrong, i'll burn in hell for eternity.
it is based only on the number of outcomes (even then, one could argue that there is more) without actually adressing the likelyhood of each outcome. it is akin to saying there is a 50/50 chance i will be struck by lightning because there are only two outcomes. given that there is no solid, irrefutable evidence of a god (and by an extension that means the chances of a god existing when we haven't found one compared to the abundance of mortal things would be increadibly small) i choose to believe in scientific determinism. in many ways it offers a simpler, if harsher, reality. and if i'm wrong, i'll burn in hell for eternity.
dragula
Member
- Local time
- Today 7:07 PM
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 81
Yup, to further state the 50/50 fallacy:
When I play the lottery I have 50/50 chance outcome. I either win or lose.
Statistics says no.
ZenRaiden
One atom of me
A coin has two sides. You know that because you hold a coin. You see it has to sides so when you flip a coin you know if you flip it there is 50/50 chance if its really a random throw.
dragula
Member
- Local time
- Today 7:07 PM
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 81
Yet it is under the assumption the coin in the experiment is perfectly round and balanced, the throw is perfectly executed and external factors aren't influencing the experimental throw. In reality you perform the throw over and over again and will probably end up close to a 50/50 chance.
As logic is just bias in human cognition it can only ever be an approximation based on probability and influencing factors. The only way to establish a confidence level in a logical proposition is by the size of its truth table, hence Ti attempts to build a single cohesive map encompassing all known facts and probabilities to stabilise the logic as much as possible.
There is nothing fixed in the universe, everything swirls around the most probable scenario that meets the available facts.
There is nothing fixed in the universe, everything swirls around the most probable scenario that meets the available facts.
sushi
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:07 PM
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 1,841
the premise of the opening is that it expects everything is probablistic, including the most fundamental truths and questions. its probably more true than false and hard to disprove. some things cannot be determined by probablity and randomeness, such as the shape and geometry of the earth.
probability and uncertainty is inherent in many things.
dragula
Member
- Local time
- Today 7:07 PM
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 81
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
God has awareness of all existence because God is consciousness.
God creates a feedback system with the physical just as we do with our consciousness.
The scale is so vast yet so sparse God's presence is sometimes undetectable.
Consciousness affects reality, there is a change in probability for any event.
So in a similar way, although I see the physical presence of another person, if I do not interact with there consciousness, they also do not exist?
I agree, I think the future is more certain than the past as I have the possibility to witness it first hand. If I go to the shop and buy some milk today, tomorrow I will open the fridge and there will be milk for my coffee, its a miracle! I can never confirm that I had milk there yesterday?
Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
I am a small individualized unit of consciousness. I believe there is nothing but consciousness - turtles all the way down. God is at the top and I am where I am. I am unaware of my cell let alone my atoms. I am a small filament. God is at every level, I can interact with only a finite set of God whereas God has infinite perspectives available to him. Leibniz called these perspectives monads.
Quote of the day Animekitty; I enjoyed that, it made me laugh. It is good to see you streaming well today; it makes me sad to see you upset and feeling incongruent.
I like to think of our individual consciousness as a cavitation bubble, forming in the void of time and space that has been torn open by the movement of God as he screws through the limitless ether of his consciousness.
Rebis
Blessed are the hearts that can bend
@DoIMustHaveAnUsername?
I'm not sure if you understand I'm pointing out a flaw in the reasoning of others, this is not an example of reasoning I would use.
How does existence of the examples given not constitute as true and false in a binary proposition? True is a state of existence, false is not. The existence in the state of an event is binary. A simple tautology, yet that's the error in this reaosning: Creating a tautology that's isolated from other elements, such as "50/50 chance I'm right" in realtion to the existence of a god is disengenuine. It's fake statistics (Quite a common phemonena in this generation.) This proposition does not factor in the likelihood of a god existing which would be derived from a foundation of evidence (a sample), which infers the existence/non-existence of a god. (I wonder if we could extend drake's equation with the possibility of civilizations defined as the kardashev scale of 4-5 to infer the possibility of a god.) In terms of being "right", it is easy to extrapolate possiblities of person A or B being correct while forgetting that there is information existing within these possibilities: Possibility A can be a composite truth, to which might be false in and of itself but 3/4 composite variables are true, in which another Possibility (C) could consist of the 3 composite variables in the subject, with one more truth which collectively is a true proposition. The existence/non-existence of proposition A does not infer the existence/non-existence of B in truths that are not atomic.
There are a lot of opinions on the size of the universe: It's expanding, contracting, static, influenced by other universes (Bubble universes), particles would expand rather than the inter-related "space" between them, gravity vs dark energy, the attractive force of dark matter against normal matter, magnetism and so on. If I firmly believe that the universe is expanding via dark energy and present it as a binary proposition that's either true or false, I can say it's a 50/50 chance I'm correct. However, this clearly ignores the multiple possibilities I've mentioned that influence the size of the universe as a result of interacting forces. This is what I mean by non-atomic elements: Instead of phrasing the proposition as a series of statements which can individually be true or false, i've created a composite probability of the statement being true or false. Binary propositions are finite systems that infer that we know all information contained with the system, so their suitability in usage isn't aptly applied to complex truths. State / total states =/= probability.
The first line is a general proposition
The second line states any proposition can be true
The third line states that the "States" exist such that is A Xor N, of which A and N are domains consisting of composite variables (Which are true or false) and that each composite variable in A does not share the same state in N, in other words they are in complete opposition to each other. The third one is obviously wrong as it specifies a Domain (A,...,n) of all possible states, where you've set the predicate to only be A xor N. All elements (opinions) of the set have not been evaluated.
The third line represent the narrow application of binary logic in situations where there are perceptible (and possibly imperceptible) states that do not exist solely as one or the other.
If the statement is true:
-Dark energy is expanding the universe
The statement above doesn't infer that dark energy isn't contracting the universe. This could mean as a net force of the universe, overall dark energy expands the universe. Or it could mean that dark energy only expands the universe and never causes contraction. The universe clearly means the observable universe, so as a whole the universe may be fixed(static), to which dark energy is expanding the area in which matter can exist or be percieved. If the statement is false it can infer a total negation of the statement (Dark energy is contrating the universe) or a contrapositive (Dark energy is not expanding the universe).
If the statement is false:
-Universal contraction
-Static universe
-Limited multi-verse spaces (of which our universe occupies and has limited space to expand into).
-Magnetism
-Van der wall forces
-Attractive forces of dark matter and matter
-Stretching/expansion of particles occupying the universe.
I'm not sure if you understand I'm pointing out a flaw in the reasoning of others, this is not an example of reasoning I would use.
How does existence of the examples given not constitute as true and false in a binary proposition? True is a state of existence, false is not. The existence in the state of an event is binary. A simple tautology, yet that's the error in this reaosning: Creating a tautology that's isolated from other elements, such as "50/50 chance I'm right" in realtion to the existence of a god is disengenuine. It's fake statistics (Quite a common phemonena in this generation.) This proposition does not factor in the likelihood of a god existing which would be derived from a foundation of evidence (a sample), which infers the existence/non-existence of a god. (I wonder if we could extend drake's equation with the possibility of civilizations defined as the kardashev scale of 4-5 to infer the possibility of a god.) In terms of being "right", it is easy to extrapolate possiblities of person A or B being correct while forgetting that there is information existing within these possibilities: Possibility A can be a composite truth, to which might be false in and of itself but 3/4 composite variables are true, in which another Possibility (C) could consist of the 3 composite variables in the subject, with one more truth which collectively is a true proposition. The existence/non-existence of proposition A does not infer the existence/non-existence of B in truths that are not atomic.
There are a lot of opinions on the size of the universe: It's expanding, contracting, static, influenced by other universes (Bubble universes), particles would expand rather than the inter-related "space" between them, gravity vs dark energy, the attractive force of dark matter against normal matter, magnetism and so on. If I firmly believe that the universe is expanding via dark energy and present it as a binary proposition that's either true or false, I can say it's a 50/50 chance I'm correct. However, this clearly ignores the multiple possibilities I've mentioned that influence the size of the universe as a result of interacting forces. This is what I mean by non-atomic elements: Instead of phrasing the proposition as a series of statements which can individually be true or false, i've created a composite probability of the statement being true or false. Binary propositions are finite systems that infer that we know all information contained with the system, so their suitability in usage isn't aptly applied to complex truths. State / total states =/= probability.
The first line is a general proposition
The second line states any proposition can be true
The third line states that the "States" exist such that is A Xor N, of which A and N are domains consisting of composite variables (Which are true or false) and that each composite variable in A does not share the same state in N, in other words they are in complete opposition to each other. The third one is obviously wrong as it specifies a Domain (A,...,n) of all possible states, where you've set the predicate to only be A xor N. All elements (opinions) of the set have not been evaluated.
The third line represent the narrow application of binary logic in situations where there are perceptible (and possibly imperceptible) states that do not exist solely as one or the other.
If the statement is true:
-Dark energy is expanding the universe
The statement above doesn't infer that dark energy isn't contracting the universe. This could mean as a net force of the universe, overall dark energy expands the universe. Or it could mean that dark energy only expands the universe and never causes contraction. The universe clearly means the observable universe, so as a whole the universe may be fixed(static), to which dark energy is expanding the area in which matter can exist or be percieved. If the statement is false it can infer a total negation of the statement (Dark energy is contrating the universe) or a contrapositive (Dark energy is not expanding the universe).
If the statement is false:
-Universal contraction
-Static universe
-Limited multi-verse spaces (of which our universe occupies and has limited space to expand into).
-Magnetism
-Van der wall forces
-Attractive forces of dark matter and matter
-Stretching/expansion of particles occupying the universe.
dragula
Member
- Local time
- Today 7:07 PM
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2020
- Messages
- 81
Let's first determine what is possible or impossible.