PHILOSOPHY ON OUR EXISTENCE

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:24 pm

Assuming that you use the words "to a power" and the symbol "^" just in a manner of speaking, then I have to say: It is NOT NOT TRUE.

~xpr'd~ · Post by **~xpr'd~** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:41 pm

StinkerSquad01 wrote:No, in logic gates, there is a NOT gate, which takes the input and inverts it.

1 NOT 0
0 NOT 1

Which in itself is an invertation. If you're going to take 1 and not have 0, how can you have 0 and not 1 at the same time? You cannot possess something and not have itself, even doubly.

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:10 pm

Of course it is an invertation, but why should an invertation be not a logical operator? In a logical calculation there are always two choices. You may call those two: 1 and 0, on and off, true and false, red and green, or on my behalf you call them qwert en trewq. To be able to do every logical calculation, you don't have enough of the operators AND and OR. You also need the operator NOT.

Just the same way as the operator NOT inverts a logical value into its opposite, inverts the operator - a numeric value into its opposite on a linear scale, and the / (1/x) inverts a numeric value on a logarithmic scale.

So, NOT is a logical operator, just the same way as - and / are mathematical operators.

boywhoflies · Post by **boywhoflies** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:53 pm

...and mabye you would need IF.
(At least in GML)

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:06 pm

IF is a function used in programming languages and spreadsheets, which needs a logical expression (logical value, or perhaps a logical calculation, including logical operators) but it is not an operator itself.

It is also not required to make a logical calculation, but it is required to make a choice in program, based on a logical value or calculation.

~xpr'd~ · Post by **~xpr'd~** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:06 pm

If you have if then you need then and ergo, else.

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 18, 2011 9:24 pm

You may use both: THEN and ELSE, but you actually only need one of them. Depending on which programming language you use, the THEN might be required, or perhaps both, but in a spreadsheet the syntax is:

IF ( logical expression ; [ THEN value ] [ ; [ ELSE value ]] )

What's between the square brackets may be omitted, but it makes no sense to omit both. So one of them can be omitted. But actually THEN and ELSE are just part of the IF-function; they are no functions or operators themselves.

VirtLands · Post by **VirtLands** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 7:27 am

Marinus wrote:Of course it is an invertation, but why should an invertation be not a logical operator? In a logical calculation there are always two choices.
You may call those two: 1 and 0, on and off, true and false, red and green, or on my behalf you call them qwert en trewq. To be able to do every logical calculation, you don't have enough of the operators AND and OR. You also need the
operator NOT.
Just the same way as the operator NOT inverts a logical value into its opposite, inverts the operator - a numeric value into its opposite on a linear scale, and the / (1/x) inverts a numeric value on a logarithmic scale.
So, NOT is a logical operator, just the same way as - and / are
mathematical operators.

Very interesting, it's my pleasure to take this a step further,
and introduce that third choice.

The common bivalent logic system [True,False] can be expanded upon.

In standard Ternary logic, there is {false, true, unknown},
represented by 0,1,2

: 0 = NO,
: 1 = YES,
: 2 = neither or both

The Balanced Ternary Logic system is similar,
and this has the values -1,0,1 ::::

: -1 = negative
: 0 = neutral
: +1 = positive

Scroll down here, and you can download two free programs
that I found; these are a trivalent (3-valued) logic ripple adder and a
Ternary Logic AND.

(sample screenshot)

MyNameIsKooky wrote:...
Must we live our lives, which aren't, according to the principles of not, which are not? Then what is it? WHAT? Is it W, which is not, H, which is not, or I, which is not either? Are you there? No. Am I here? No. Well then, WHO IS? We know: YOU, not the U symbolic, but you pronomial. But let's not be absurd. Let's not label our own labels. Otherwise we are making this topic a topic. AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE A TOPIC!!! Why? Because you aren't. So, ah, all who aren't, are, and those who are, are not. But wait, this means that if one, being not one, is not, then they of course must not be, then won't, but were, now aren't, then is, but not ... one. Ah, it is all now apparently obvious, no?

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:44 am

That's a lot to read!

I started reading about the N-state switching, but I've not finished yet. However, I think I understand the idea of the 3-choice logic with: True, False, and Unknown, which is actually much more realistic then using only True and False, because lots of things in life are unknown. So I think we can simplify all logic of the universe in one easy logic operation:

(everything we think to know about life and the universe) AND (everything we do not know) = Unknown.

VirtLands · Post by **VirtLands** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:57 pm

Here's 4-state Logic:

consisting of values 0,1,2,3

{ False, True, Maybe, ___?? }

I don't know that the fourth value is or how it would relate to our reality;

Here's the ever popular 4-state Latch :: (each input can have a value of 0,1,2,3)
http://www.nstatelogic.com/

You can download the patent of this device::

Click here to download that patent

and see details on how it works.

I don't think there will ever be a 3-state latch
or a 5,6,7,8,.... -state latch, since I've searched and found none.

The Latch Flip-Flop
http://openbookproject.net/courses/intr ... ogic2.html

A review of Binary Latches:
http://www.c-jump.com/CIS77/CPU/Storage/lecture.html

Sequential Circuits
http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/COE/ashraf/ ... ter4_1.htm

more Flip flops
http://www.cs.umbc.edu/~squire/cs313_l22.html

JK Flip Flops
http://nelumkolaya.blogspot.com/2011/05/flip-flops.html

tyteen4a03 · Post by **tyteen4a03** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:10 am

Alright, from meaningless (?) philosophy to meaningful logic...

If a book exists does the content of the book necessarily exist?

MyNameIsKooky · Post by **MyNameIsKooky** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:16 am

tyteen4a03 wrote:meaningless (?) philosophy

MEANINGLESS?! Have you read any of my points? We're trying to gain the capability to not be!

If a book exists does the content of the book necessarily exist?

Yes, it does. It's part of the book, isn't it?

billy bob · Post by **billy bob** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:04 pm

Philosophy is the only thing that isn't meaningless!

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:48 pm

billy bob wrote:Philosophy is the only thing that isn't meaningless!

Interesting!

But if those words would be spoken by a true philosopher, I would expect some good philosophy to prove that statement.

VirtLands · Post by **VirtLands** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:45 pm

Marinus wrote:But if those words would be spoken by a true philosopher, I would expect some good philosophy to prove that statement.

Some proof:

Obviously, I exist if I doubt that I exist. My doubt that I exist proves that
I exist, for I have to exist to be able to doubt. Therefore I can’t doubt
that I exist. Hence, there is at least one fact in the universe that is beyond
doubt. “I am, I exist is necessarily true each time that I pronounce it, or
that I mentally conceive it.

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:13 pm

I agree with you, but it doesn't prove anything to me

If I take your words, and replace every word: "I" (Andy) with "I" (Marinus) then it proves to me (M) that I (M) exist. However, it doesn't prove to me (M) that you (A) exist.

Perhaps I'm just dreaming that I'm sitting on a chair, looking at a computer screen, to a forum, with a post from someone with the username "Virtlands".

Or, instead of the word "dreaming" I can say: it happens all in my mind or in my imagination. It might be a hallucination or an illusion.

But actually I was talking about a proof for Billy Bob's statement:

Philosophy is the only thing that isn't meaningless!

Personally I think philosophy is fun, so it isn't meaningless, but not the only thing that isn't meaningless. But it all depends on one's definition of a word, such as "meaning" or "existence"

VirtLands · Post by **VirtLands** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:15 am

In a battle between Logic and Philosophy,
Logic would probably win.
But, I'm not an expert on philosophy, so I won't comment.

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:16 am

I think there would be no battle between logic and philosophy, because they are pretty much the same. The only difference is that logic is binary (True or False), while philosophy is trinary: Also True and False, but pretty much most things are Unkown.

That doesn't mean there's a contradictory though: Logic avoids matters which are unkown, while philosophy is more realistic; taking everything.

In the end there are only 10 kinds of people:
- Those who think they are right,
- Those who think they are probably wrong, and
- Those who admit they really don't know.

Emerald141 · Post by **Emerald141** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:25 am

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:40 am

Good point!

About philosophy being meaningless: The central point of philosophy is to search for the meaning of life AFAICT. So far, we haven't found it , so philosophy is, for the moment, meaningless. *runs*

One addition: instead of the big word: Philosophy, we can say: (Everything in) LIFE is meaningless.

So....... I'm not quite sure, but .... I think ....

Philosophy is as meaningless or meaningful as everything in life!

MyNameIsKooky · Post by **MyNameIsKooky** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:46 am

Marinus wrote:Philosophy is as meaningless or meaningful as everything in life!

Thus we're trying to find philosophy as meaningful as possible, which is pretty much the point of this topic. Life can be quite confusing, therefore some of the philosophy in this topic is confusing (and seemingly contradictory) as well. I suppose one could say that philosophy = life?

Philosophy is life... hmm...

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:07 am

In my opinion, in a way we can say that: Philosophy = life.

However, there are also lots of people (if they really exist) who don't care about philosophy, and who don't think about the meaning of things / life at all. Some of them seem to be happy.

Perhaps some people who have a pretty low IQ and who are never worrying about the meaning of life are even more happy. So I can't be sure what's better. Sometimes I just want to be happy, not thinking and worrying about things, but well, I'm just as I am.....

Emerald141 · Post by **Emerald141** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:39 pm

tyteen4a03 · Post by **tyteen4a03** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:51 pm

Are we meant to die, in some way? Technology will soon allow us to 'live forever', but is not dying obeying the order of the nature?

billy bob · Post by **billy bob** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 4:37 pm

Order of nature? What is that?

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:13 pm

billy bob wrote:Order of nature? What is that?

The way things use to happen in nature.

For example, that most birds fly, that fishes swim, that all living beings once will die, that the sun comes up in the East, and goes down in the West, that if you're walking without clothes on the North pole, you're getting cold, those things are the order of nature.

Tyteen wrote:Technology will soon allow us to 'live forever'

Good luck!

Perhaps 10 or 20 years, but forever? Never!

Are we meant to die, in some way? ..... but is not dying obeying the order of the nature?

I believe you sort of answered your own question.

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:18 pm

Of course I meant: 10 or 20 years longer but I think that's obvious.

Nobody · Post by **Nobody** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:30 pm

Emerald141 wrote:I kinda fail at philosophy, I should probably stop. *dies*

billy bob · Post by **billy bob** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:30 pm

Marinus wrote:
billy bob wrote:Order of nature? What is that?
The way things use to happen in nature.

For example, that most birds fly, that fishes swim, that all living beings once will die, that the sun comes up in the East, and goes down in the West, that if you're walking without clothes on the North pole, you're getting cold, those things are the order of nature.

So, what isn't natural? If you are walking in the "North pole" and not cold and not wearing clothes then that means that there must be a natural explanation. Everything is natural.

Marinus · Post by **Marinus** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:13 pm

Perhaps, but I wouldn't be so sure of that.

People can only give a natural explanation of things based on their own experience. If you have seen the sun coming up in the East for tenthousand times all your lifetime, then you know that's the order of nature.

The same for, if you know from your own experience, if it's minus 20 degrees Celsius in the winter, that it's cold, because you feel cold.

Scientists can make a theory that if the temperature is lower, that the molecules and atoms are moving slower, and that electrical signals in human nerves are sent to the brain, so you feel cold. That is a natural explanation, based on their experience and based on their logical thoughts.

However, there is no natural explanation what it means to feel cold, warmth, love, hate, or anything what a human can feel. They can make a theory based on their experience about waht happens in the human body, but there is no natural explanation what's exactly life, or how exactly the human mind works.

Scientist can do a lot, but so far there was no one able to recreate life, not even a single living cell.

There are also lots of people who believe in an afterlife, who believe in supernatural things, or in God. There is no evidence that those things exist, but neither that they don't exist. So, are those things true? Is there a natural explanation for? Who knows?

I can only give a natural explanation for some things I have experience with. And I have to admit, that's not really very much.

But if you say (in some other words) that there's natural explanation for everything: Be my guest!

PHILOSOPHY ON OUR EXISTENCE

Trivalent Philosophy on our existence

4-state logic

Philosophy on our existence

Logic & Philosphy