> I remember in one of our earlier conversations, I proposed that "reason" should be turned into two terms: "cause" and "plan-given-knowledge". You weren't impressed.

Hmmmm....maybe I misunderstood....want to run it by me again?

> In general I do believe that separating out different senses is important for reasoning because logic cannot allow for one meaning in one clause and another in a different clause of the same argument. This fallacy is omnipresent in anything but the equations of hard science IMO

Exactly my point (I think).....and worse: based on my observations, many people seem to think that Science is The answer to all our problems (presumably because of its genuinely amazing track record of success, but only in the limited domain within which it practices), but don't realize that science doesn't really take into consideration the complex layers of metaphysical reality that do indeed exist, whether or not we have a means of measuring them. As long as we continue to ignore metaphysics, it will continue to fuck up our shit, and we will continue to blame it on literal fantasies.

> Yes, of course I identify with whorfism. I would go further than the strong version. Non linguistic Neural modules programmed by our society generate assertions and assent to them at very advanced points in the chain of reasoning. Foundationalism as a realistic model for human reason is quite laughable really.

Ok, that makes two of us. I think we need better marketing for this potentially transformational movement.

> The answer is false.

Excel disagrees.

> Actually truth requires 100% unanimity.

Let's say someone asserts that there is a ticking time bomb planted at some location, and there is a dispute between people on the matter. As long as the dispute remains, does that prevent the bomb from exploding?

It also suggests that reality itself takes on the form that humans believe it to be, does it not?

> If truth is a socially-constructed concept developed to allow human coordination, then we learn from each other when to assent. The education process is more one-sided than "each other" might indicate, but in the long term it works by "pass it forward".

Do you think it would be useful for humanity to have a separate term for the oh so common (I'd estimate 75%++ of all discussions/beliefs) scenario where there is a distinction between ~"cultural/social truth" and actual truth?

Followup question: hard whorfism - are you a believer? (Arguing with linguists on that topic is....recursively interesting).

On one hand: agree. On the other hand: most people seem unable to even seriously grapple with the notion of Truth, so from a pragmatic perspective I think it's very useful.

Do you have a superior proposal? I'm always looking for ways to improve.

Aka: unknown or null.

I don't think this necessarily applies though as definitions (implementations) can do an end run around it, like a tie having zero race leader or two race leaders....there is the objective physical state of reality, and the subjective perceptual/narrative state, but humans tend to conflate the two (the subjective state often appears to be objective).

It was fun, I think we were kinda arguing two related but distinct points simultaneously though.....Reddit sucks for serious arguments.

What if there is no data feed for portions of the race? What value would one store for those timestamps?

> RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL

Nope, regardless of whether RL == SL, due to the difference in my implementation.

> It now allows for ties.

For now....I might change it again!

> It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”

I don't think "just" is appropriate here, as the truth value is a function of the implementation. Barring a singular, conclusive/deterministic definition, it is subjective.

Regardless: ternary (and other kinds) of logic exists, it does not require your agreement or approval.

> The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.

Ok then:

RL = both A and B.

You are thus incorrect.

Well that's weird.

Who decides on the categorization algorithm implementation? Can there be only one?

> We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.

What if they're tied?

> We already know the latter.

Actually you don't - that's what I meant by: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality"".

If the data in question is streaming values of a variable that toggles between True/False (or, something else entirely, like the name of a person), the value varies over time, and, sometimes there is no value even at base level reality. For example, take something like: Race Leader - if two people are tied for first place, there is no singular leader - in this case, reality itself is NULL.

If the state of nullness can be rectified (replaced with an actual value), then it would be possible to resolve the proposition to a non-unknown value - but not until then.

> but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false

The text explicitly states the opposite of that.

"NULL = 1" --> Unknown

> That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.

Incorrect.

> Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.

Question: have you ever written any tests in school?

Ah ok....well, I haven't changed the definition of true and false....set theory as implemented in databases is probably the easiest way to understand it:

https://modern-sql.com/concept/three-valued-logic

> Comparisons to null > > The SQL null value basically means “could be anything”. It is therefore impossible to tell whether a comparison to null is true or false. That’s where the third logical value, unknown, comes in. Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”. > > The result of each of the following comparisons is therefore unknown > > NULL = 1
> NULL <> 1
> NULL > 1
> NULL = NULL
> > Nothing equals null. Not even null equals null because each null could be different.

Did you note this part: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality""?

Do you know (JTB) that zero humans have ever adopted a single belief based on what they've read on Reddit (and if so: can you demonstrate that it is necessarily true, and applies to me personally)?

> As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right?

That is a metaphysical question, the answer to which we also do not have access (in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality").

> but we know it has to be either true or false

Can you prove that?

> If not, what’s the third option?

No idea...that I am unable to present a third option does not cause reality itself to not support a third option.

It depends on whether you are talking about base reality itself or our perception/beliefs about base reality....it can be quite tricky to pull the two apart.

Take "There is a God(s)" - how can humans assign a conclusive value to that proposition in an epistemically flawless manner?

>Debating on Reddit is pointless. There’s no stakes here.

Don't you think beliefs spread on Reddit, and don't you think beliefs have at least some effect on people's behavior?

>That’s not to say you’re not right in that it can be twisted to justify any point you want, because it can.

Can you give an example, preferably with a broadly considered negative point?