#### junker

• Planar Moderator
• 8932
##### Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #60 on: October 27, 2018, 01:48:09 PM »
Then you implied you didn't mean they were false, because you said 'world not Boolean'.
No. A statement can be false without its exact opposite being true. This is because the real world is not always well-represented by oversimplified Boolean logic. For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one.
Oh right, you are denying Excluded Middle then. No point in arguing with someone who doesn’t believe in standard logic.

Note you are confusing a contrary (‘opposite’) with a contradictory, i.e. a negation. ‘Not the case that p’ includes absolutely every case where p is false, without remainder, so one or the other has to be true. Thus ‘No A is B’ contradicts ‘some A is B’. Contraries (‘No A is B’ / ‘every A is B’) can both be false of course.

So Flat earth even has a different logic? Interesting. But as I say, without logic, no meaningful discussion is to be had.

It is actually very clear what Pete meant, and you are now derailing the thread by being intentionally obtuse. Have a warning, and I suggest you get back on topic if you are going to continue posting.

Edit, also you have a ton of warnings and previous bans already. Next one will be a month vacation.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2018, 01:50:12 PM by junker »

#### QED

• 863
• As mad as a hatter.
##### Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2018, 01:43:32 AM »
"A statement can be false without its exact opposite being true."

I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Given a well-defined logical statement, either A or not A is true. There is no other option. If you believe there is, may I ask you for an example of a logical statement that violates this?

Certainly, one can have ambiguous statements within a certain framework. "This statement is false," for example, has no truth value. But it is not a logical statement, because it is self-referencing. I claim that any logical statement whose truth value is well-defined must either be true or false.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10396
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2018, 08:35:56 AM »
I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Given a well-defined logical statement, either A or not A is true.
You're not disagreeing with me, you just forgot to read the rest of my statement:

"For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one."

edby failed to construct a "well-defined logical statement" or (per his own Wikipedia link) a proposition. The language used in this conversation was entirely colloquial, until edby suddenly decided to pretend that we're exchanging Boolean logic statements. This breaks down easily in everyday use since, as you rightly point out, it's easy to construct a statement without a clear truth value.

Specifically, edby's statement fails because he assumes that my denial of (say) option 3 must mean that UA doesn't affect the bodies mentioned (rather than the correct interpretation of option 3 not being correct due to being incomplete).

Without any context, you could argue that my assumptions were flawed, and that I should consider incomplete answers to be true (by virtue of them not being strictly false). But this is why I followed up with a qualifying statement, removing any possible ambiguity.

You could adjust the terms of this conversation into sensible logical statements, at which point they could clearly be answered formally. But this hasn't happened thus far, and I honestly don't think it's particularly necessary.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2018, 08:47:16 AM by Pete Svarrior »

*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

#### JCM

• 156
##### Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2018, 01:41:01 PM »
This thread made it to page 4 and is dying to, wait for it, arguing about arguing.  This is like dinner table at the holidays back home.

If you are going to have a “theory” then it needs a definition or at least a mostly-working-definition so it can be defended and used to explain some simple observation.  UA is yet another ambiguous theory with no definition, so It is basically MAGIC.  It affects what it would need to affect to have the outcome that works with our observations, and doesn’t affect which doesn’t fit and we have no explanation for those.

#### QED

• 863
• As mad as a hatter.
##### Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2018, 03:11:53 PM »
I have to respectfully disagree with this point. Given a well-defined logical statement, either A or not A is true.
You're not disagreeing with me, you just forgot to read the rest of my statement:

"For your model to work, you'd have to deconstruct a claim into a series of binary decisions, and then analyse those one by one."

edby failed to construct a "well-defined logical statement" or (per his own Wikipedia link) a proposition. The language used in this conversation was entirely colloquial, until edby suddenly decided to pretend that we're exchanging Boolean logic statements. This breaks down easily in everyday use since, as you rightly point out, it's easy to construct a statement without a clear truth value.

Specifically, edby's statement fails because he assumes that my denial of (say) option 3 must mean that UA doesn't affect the bodies mentioned (rather than the correct interpretation of option 3 not being correct due to being incomplete).

Without any context, you could argue that my assumptions were flawed, and that I should consider incomplete answers to be true (by virtue of them not being strictly false). But this is why I followed up with a qualifying statement, removing any possible ambiguity.

You could adjust the terms of this conversation into sensible logical statements, at which point they could clearly be answered formally. But this hasn't happened thus far, and I honestly don't think it's particularly necessary.

Yes, you are right. I agree with all of your statements here, but do wonder why you think it is unnecessary to re-draw the conversation into its logical import. Wouldn't that clarify matters?
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 10396
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: How to disprove Universal Acceleration with your bare eyes:
« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2018, 06:28:01 PM »
Yes, you are right. I agree with all of your statements here, but do wonder why you think it is unnecessary to re-draw the conversation into its logical import. Wouldn't that clarify matters?
I don't think it's a bad thing to do, just that everyday conversational standards should have been enough here. In any case I'm not opposed to doing that if my meaning is still unclear to edby or others.