Fandom

Scratchpad

Random1

216,003pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Discuss this page0 Share

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Notes not meant for publication, they are place holders for ideas that will eventually be incorporated into the main TauTology page and have lots of grammar and spelling mistakes.


2+ 2 = 4

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jr/how_to_convince_me_that_2_2_3/

is 2 + 1 = 3 a tautology? No, problem is with the + operator sign, it means different things in different contexts. 2 oxyg atoms plus 1 hydrogen = 1 water molecule. A tautology is defined as neither verifiable nor refutable under any conditions in any context , since 2 +1 = 3 in one context and 2 + 1 = 1 in another, it isn't a tautology.

Circular reasoning as opposed to tautology

get back to article that ocnfuses circ. reasoning with a tautology, it leads to erronous conclusions. See burkhard's notes at Stanford tautologies and http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/09nsel01.htm trying to disprove natural selection. If ns is a tautology it can't be disprove because tautologies are defined as being ironclad

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/09nsel06.htm

notes 1

Some usenet post I mentioned that God isn't reducible to a falsifiable construct because then the Lord Jesus would not be God. He told Moses .... I am that I am ... which is not a falsifiable statement. Falsifiability is but a subset of unfalsifiability.

Get your train of thought sorted on this issue and tie it in with http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Godel%27s_incompleteness_theorem

dd

add section from saint hillaire , who had the same idea aroun 1823. he in turn got it from hutton, 1791 probably all the way back to democritus , lucretius, empedocles aristotle

creatures obtained attributes that weren't in the previous generations via natural(unintended) means of competitive selection(preservation,cultivation or survival - Natural Selection - as they struggled against those creatures who perished. Favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species - MalThus An analogues process is the Artificial Cultivation(selection) as breeders cultivate,preserve(select) those attributes to accumulate in offspring via small differential reproductive increments(JohnTyndall). Those creatures who survived the struggle passed on their attributes through differential reproduction; small incremental increases in favorable attributes that made it more likely for them to survive. Those who perished had attributes that weren't favorable in the struggle for survival. A descent with modification occured.

On wikipedia I a key insight about tautologies: ...tautologies use dissimalar terms that self-referentially refer to the same fact....

This is an unfalsifiable proposition because we would be told the same story if the other creature won the struggle for survival. The terms 'favorable' and 'tend to be preserved' are dissimal terms that self-referentially refer to the same fact, saying the same thing twice and thus a rhetorical tautology: the conclusion that new species would form,obtain attributes that weren't in previous generations, is a non-sequitur.

As a proposition it is formulated in such a manner that it cannot be disputed, hence Popper unfalsifiable. Darwin wrote ...the truth of the propositions cannot be disputed.... Tautological assertions such as 1=1 are mathematical redundancies which can neither be refuted nor verified. A falsificationtific(not scientific) theory is formulated in such a way that its truth can always be disputed or verified, such as Newton's inverse square law. Falsifiable theories assume unfalsifiable assertions as the supportive scaffolding, consistent with Godel's theorem that in any logical description something must be assumed that will never be proven. Newton's falsifiable descriptions is logical, verifiable and disputable and yet it has to assume unfalsifiable assertions.

This has led to equivocation between tautological asserionts,expressions and propositions, committing the fallacy of innocence by association as seen with the attempt to entangle physics equations with tautological propositions - physics equations aren't tautologies. The fact that F=ma isn't a tautology has been repeatedly removed from wikipedia rhetorical tautology article.

We are after disputable theories, not certainties or facts. If evolution is a fact, then specifically isn't a theory and thus like the fact 'what happens,happens' not Popper falsifiable and thus useless as an explanation.

5000 years ago after the flood Gandalf the tribal wizard told the same myth,only this time the struggle for survival and the establishment of order over chaos was between the god and the giant see monster.

His myth was adopted by Empedocles, Democritus doctrine of atoms and Aristotle. Incorporated by Jerome after Constantine and revived by Aquinas during the 13th century.

Blyth also incorporate the myth not comprehending what a tautology is. Because tautologies aren't verifiable nor disputable, they allow one to come to any non-sequitur conclusion. This doesn't make teh conclusion false, merely a non-sequitur.

Revived by Lucretius De-Rerum-Natura and not knowing that a tautology is , a failed rebuttal by Sam wilberforce and blackburn gutenberg press.

Theists have attempted to compensate for the mythology , because they couldn't comprehend that it was formulated in such a way that the truth of the proposistion cannot be disputed

what is a tautology by wilkins

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2009/08/tautology-4-what-is-a-tautology/


Majority and minority

I show the following video clips:

Vid1: Cat walks on the table and knocks over container filled with alphabetic letters made out of wood.

Vid2: Man walks into room picks up container and throws out the letters on the floor.

A copper ball is placed on the table beside all videos of type Vid1 and a lead ball besides all videos of type Vid2, meaning we symbolically represent a pattern with a purpose with copper and those without purpose with a lead ball.

This raises the question: What other possible means could there be as to how these wood letters fell on the ground? Any other way would only be of two *types* Vid1 or Vid2.

If we were to sit there with a video camera from now to eternity capturing each event of the container spilling the letters on the ground of what possible type could they be other than Vid1 or Vid2? The reasonable answer would be none, based on experience: there are only two Platonic primary binary contrasts either the letters on the ground is a pattern with a purpose or a pattern without a purpose.

Earthquake, tornado -> type Vid1 Clock timing device pulling in relay to knock over container -> type Vid2.

Copper itself, representing only itself is not the contrast to the lead ball: the only contrast is the contrast in *concepts*. The only literal meaning that the copper ball and lead ball have are copper and lead, they only represent themselves. The copper ball does not mean events of type Vid1, it is only an arbitrary object used to metaphorically represent events of type Vid1. Meaning is only something observers of type Vid1 and Vid2 can agree on.

YEC are using volitional type language that was used to represent all concepts as either type Vid1 or Vid2. Atheists disagrees that type Vid1 and Vid2 are our only options and are using the same semantic objects YEC use to represent a world view where Platonic primary contrasts are not *assumed*. Note that I wrote assume and Dawkins also wrote that he does not *assume* Platonic opposites, because this is not a matter of falsifiable scientific testable constructs but about what unfalsifiable untestable validities we *assume* as logical.

By the precepts of empiricism the claims of logic are not falsifiable and since our falsifiable theories must assume logical validities , we have to make clear what we assume, that which we know to be true, neither refutable nor verifiable for eternity.

There is therefore no such thing as a literal meaning with alphabetic objects found in a dictionary, all semantic objects are used in either the majority metaphor or minority metaphor. Dictionaries document the majority metaphor.

Many dictionaries post Darwin around 1901 started to list a *third option* for the object 'selection'. Before around 1901 its majority metaphor is to make a decision (type Vid2) and its minority metaphorical usage is type Vid1 , after this the dictionaries began to list its Biological usage.

But from the YEC Platonic primary contrasts there can't be such a thing as a Biological meaning, only a type Vid1 and Vid2 meaning, since this is our only experiential reference frame.

By analogy , if people across the world were to agree on a copper ball representing patterns without a purpose then it would be documented as the *majority metaphor* in dictionaries.

Undirected does not mean the concept displayed with Vid1: it is an arbitrary object or symbol we agree on to *symbolically* represent Vid1 and Vid1 we understand as the contrast to Vid2. Undirected can merely be some *defined* majority metaphor and we find these definitions in dictionaries.

The semantic objects you choose to use is whatever you want. In many cases an object such as 'random' is used in the minority metaphor such as representing purpose(Vid2) , when a person does Probability Sampling(selecting).

What type of Vid1(no purpose) or Vid2(purpose) is represented with undirected in the ID article on Wikipedia? If neither type then explain what would be the third option and how we would avoid infinite regress.

Also on Fandom

Random wikia