This is Not a Pipe

  • 211 Replies
  • 32761 Views
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #30 on: March 07, 2007, 04:47:36 AM »
What about liquid metal, or liquid nitrogen?

If you put a lighter than air gas at the bottom of a tank of liquid metal, it would travel upwards. And theoretically be used as some kind of a demon spawn pipe.

?

Miss M.

  • 1854
  • Screw you.
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #31 on: March 07, 2007, 04:49:56 AM »
Quote from: TheEngineer
I happen to like GG.
Quote from: Z, the Enlightened.
I never thought in my life I'd write the sentence "I thought they were caught in a bipolar geodesic?"

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #32 on: March 07, 2007, 03:24:19 PM »
Consider, for example, the sentence, "If this sentence is true, then Yetis live in Alaska." If the sentence is true, then it's true that "If this sentence is true, then Yetis live in Alaska", and the sentence is true, so Yetis must live in Alaska. But since it's true that Yetis live in Alaska if the sentence is true, and that's exactly the content of the sentence, the sentence is true. Therefore, Yetis live in Alaska.

That is an interesting example, but it doesn't make sense.  The first example cannot be reasoned because the first clause refers to nothing that can be proven true or false.  Yetis living in Alaska has nothing to do with the truth of the sentence.  The truth about whether or not Yetis live in Alaska can only be ascertained once the truth of the first clause is determined.  Maybe you just didn't word it right or I'm not properly understanding you.

Let me try to explain it with symbols, and see if that helps. A is the statement, "If this sentence is true, then Yetis live in Alaska." Call the statement "Yetis live in Alaska" B. Then A is the statement A->B (the statement is self-referential), or we could write,
A = A->B
Suppose A is true. Then we have:
A
A->B (since that's what A is)
B (from modus ponens)
So from this supposition, we conclude that A->B. But A->B is exactly the statement A! So A must be true. And since A = A->B, A->B is true, so B is also true.

Did that help at all?

This paradox is known as Löb's paradox, or Curry's paradox, and has a Wikipedia article which might help explain it better than I have.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

unclegravy

  • 957
  • I feel so fucking high!!!!!!
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #33 on: March 07, 2007, 03:42:10 PM »
But as was stated, since there is no way to verify if B is an immediate effect of A, then the sentence is null.
Quote
The people who feast on exclamation marks will never go hungry agaaaain!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #34 on: March 07, 2007, 03:47:38 PM »
You can say something is true, but a person doesn't have to believe it.

Language has many flaws.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #35 on: March 07, 2007, 04:26:00 PM »
If you accept the possibility of a statement A which states A->B, and require that that statement be either true or false, I don't see how you can deny that A is in fact true, and therefore implies B. As far as I can see, the only way out of the paradox is the say that self-referential "statements" are not statements at all, or are meaningless.
-David
E pur si muove!

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #36 on: March 07, 2007, 06:33:58 PM »
If you accept the possibility of a statement A which states A->B, and require that that statement be either true or false, I don't see how you can deny that A is in fact true, and therefore implies B. As far as I can see, the only way out of the paradox is the say that self-referential "statements" are not statements at all, or are meaningless.

In order for A to be true, B must be true. If B were false, A would immediately be false.

A = A government conspiracy hides the truth about the Earth being flat.

B = The Earth is flat.

In order for A to be true, B must also be true. If B were false, A would then be false. However, if A were false, B would not immediately be false. Just to phrase it another way  8)
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #37 on: March 07, 2007, 06:46:04 PM »
That wikipedia article jogged my memory.  I remember learning about this paradox in a probability and game theory class. 

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #38 on: March 07, 2007, 06:56:40 PM »
That wikipedia article jogged my memory.  I remember learning about this paradox in a probability and game theory class. 

I don't get it though. What about that is a paradox? The word "if" ruins it from the beginning. It is only a paradox if you ASSUME that the sentence is true. So if one element of the sentence is not true (Yetis don't live in Alaska) then the entire sentence is not true.
Quote from: BOGWarrior89

I'm giving you five points for that one


*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #39 on: March 07, 2007, 06:57:34 PM »
If you accept the possibility of a statement A which states A->B, and require that that statement be either true or false, I don't see how you can deny that A is in fact true, and therefore implies B. As far as I can see, the only way out of the paradox is the say that self-referential "statements" are not statements at all, or are meaningless.

In order for A to be true, B must be true. If B were false, A would immediately be false.

A = A government conspiracy hides the truth about the Earth being flat.

B = The Earth is flat.

In order for A to be true, B must also be true. If B were false, A would then be false. However, if A were false, B would not immediately be false. Just to phrase it another way  8)
Well, we have a statement of the form A->B. Such statements are necessarily true whenever A is false, regardless of whether B is true or false. So if A is false, then the statement A->B is true. But A is the statement A->B. So A cannot possibly be false, and must therefore be true! (At least, if you accept that A is a valid statement with an attached truth value.)

I never assumed that A was true. I showed that A was true. Now I'm showing that it's true a different way.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2007, 05:33:19 PM »


Elle n'est pas une pipe, elle est un crack pipe.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #41 on: March 12, 2007, 12:32:27 PM »
Easiest paradox:

I always lie.
ah.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #42 on: March 12, 2007, 03:22:07 PM »
Not really a paradox. You could draw from it that you only lie some of the time, and this is one of those occasions.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #43 on: March 12, 2007, 04:30:35 PM »
It is a paradox. It's one of the best-known paradoxes. Always is an absolute, you could infer no such thing from it.
ah.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #44 on: March 12, 2007, 05:00:34 PM »
But if you're lying about always lying you could lie some of the time and still tell the truth some of the time. It's bullshit. Think about the exception. If i don't lie all the time, i could lie some of the time, like in the statement "I always lie". You just make the assumption that if I don't lie all time I tell the truth all the time. There is no circular reasoning in that case. Think for once.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #45 on: March 12, 2007, 05:06:25 PM »
You're wrong. I'll wait for someone here to explain it more eloquently. What you are talking about makes no sense.
ah.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #46 on: March 12, 2007, 05:08:20 PM »
Whatever. If you don't get it, I can't explain it without getting a few more hours of sleep than i've had. All nighters suck.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #47 on: March 12, 2007, 05:09:26 PM »
It's called a self-referential paradox. If you don't understand it, that's too bad. You're wrong.
ah.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #48 on: March 12, 2007, 05:12:26 PM »
OK sure. But i'm just saying there is more than 2 options. Maybe if you think of the statement as a statement made by an individual and not just as a statement.


*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #50 on: March 12, 2007, 05:18:14 PM »
If five minutes ago you said "the sky is blue". Then you said "i always lie" The second statement would simply be false. there would be no paradox. I simply stated that you saying "I always lie" is in no way a paradox it is simply false. Oh and please don't source wikipedia on a philosophical question. It's written by random people who may or may not be right. Please give a quality source when it comes to opinions.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2007, 05:28:25 PM by Raist »

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #51 on: March 12, 2007, 05:24:29 PM »
If someone says "I always lie" and they are lying then that means that sometimes they tell the truth. It doesn't mean that they are telling the truth in that instant.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #52 on: March 12, 2007, 05:32:03 PM »
If five minutes ago you said "the sky is blue". Then you said "i always lie" The second statement would simply be false. there would be no paradox. I simply stated that you saying "I always lie" is in no way a paradox it is simply false. Oh and please don't source wikipedia on a philosophical question. It's written by random people who may or may not be right. Please give a quality source when it comes to opinions.

Nice ad hominem. Also, nice job ignoring the other three sources. You're still wrong.

Do you even KNOW what a paradox is?
ah.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #53 on: March 12, 2007, 05:32:48 PM »
If someone says "I always lie" and they are lying then that means that sometimes they tell the truth. It doesn't mean that they are telling the truth in that instant.

You fail. You also are totally wrong. *sighs*
ah.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #54 on: March 12, 2007, 05:33:27 PM »
Sprinkz, you told it wrong, and then called people dumb when they noticed.

You fail.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #55 on: March 12, 2007, 05:34:19 PM »
Lol. That's what you get when you take something off wikipedia and then say it's true.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2007, 05:34:49 PM »
Sprinkz, you told it wrong, and then called people dumb when they noticed.

You fail.

How did I tell it wrong? It's the self-referential paradox. You mind explaining?
ah.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #57 on: March 12, 2007, 05:37:16 PM »
Um we did. and u said no your wrong.  ::) Damn think for yourself instead of letting other people do it for you.

Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #58 on: March 12, 2007, 05:38:42 PM »
Quote
If five minutes ago you said "the sky is blue". Then you said "i always lie" The second statement would simply be false. there would be no paradox. I simply stated that you saying "I always lie" is in no way a paradox it is simply false. Oh and please don't source wikipedia on a philosophical question. It's written by random people who may or may not be right. Please give a quality source when it comes to opinions.

If that's true, then both statements are false if you ALWAYS lie. If that's false then they MAY or MAY not be true. There is no solution to that.

There is no solution to: "I am lying now," either.
ah.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: This is Not a Pipe
« Reply #59 on: March 12, 2007, 05:41:13 PM »
OK FUCKTARD. The first statement is true NO MATTER WHAT, IT DOESNT MATTER. and if the second one is false then why would the first one be false? IT IS NOT A CONDITIONAL STATEMENT.