Is religion dying?

[dybmh]

Where does it say that? Please tell me where in seconds from the start, so that we can analyze what it says.
Back into making things up?

ciao

- viole

It starts at 2:41.

"In ordinary natural language it seems that we are saying that "there is an element in the empty-set that are cows." This is false..."

So when you said "All the Jews I know are atheists" in natural language, it is false. Then one can follow the form in the video and rewrite the statement, changing its meaning in natural language.

"If I know any Jews, then all the Jews I know are atheists" is true. But none of them are *actually* atheists. Just as there are no *actual* cows in the empty-set. It is a vacuous truth.

The so-called proof that an empty-set is a subset of all sets is in the same form. It uses the same method. It is, at best, vacuously true. It is not *actually* true. The empty-set is not *actually* a subset of everyset. It was not *actually* proven. It's just a convention. A convenient fiction.

 

[viole]

In ordinary natural language it seems that we are saying that "there is an element in the empty-set that are cows." This is false..."

yes, it is false what natural language interprets. It is false what you interpret. and why it is false follows also immediately. Because that is not what the sentence says. So, looks like another failed attempt to correctly interpret your own mother language, assuming English is your mother language, which I start to seriously doubt.

And as it repeats many times, the empty set is therefore a subset of every set. Demonstration took about one line. Repeated several times. Uncontroversial. Easy. Inescapable. Like all demonstrations I showed.

therefore, my case is still untouched. As it is expected since it has a very simple mathematical proof. And mathematical proofs are difficult to challenge.

so, now it is your turn to show some evidence of your claims. Because you must have got it somewhere. I cannot imagine anyone making up that nonsense by himself. Namely: where did you see, in books, videos, training material, etc. that the empty set IS NOT, or MIGHT BE NOT a subset of every set? Where is it? is that really what they taught you at school? Do you still have that book you used for school?

where dod you get that from? I am really curious. If it was your teacher, I would really recommend to sue him, for teaching ridicolous falsehoods to small children.

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Well, yes. Now for chess there are in fact currently 2 set of rules for a certain subset of the rules.

Well, yeah, you know what I mean. A bishop will always move like a bishop. The color it is on, is an invariant of the game.

As for logic, yes, there are for some humans the ability to think in the same manner and thus understand logic.

As I said, to prove things, it is not requited to understand what the statement says. No brain. no semantics. Just systematic application of the rules.

Now in practice for logic, the main difference I have actually found is how different people treat different cases of absurd and how they view different rules.

Well, as for chess, or for any game, it helps to agree on the rules. To bypass them because we think is cool, or it might help us, is simple intellectual dishonesty. Cheating, basically.

But as a skeptic I just check if you do all your posts being objective and with reason, logic and evidence/truth/proof and you don't.
It is not that logic doesn't work at all, it is that it has a limit. That is all.

I am sorry to contradict you. In this particular case used the rules of the game. Nothing more, nothing less. no brain. No interpretation. with the sole assumption of the rules of classical logic. And I challenge you to show me where that was not the case.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, yeah, you know what I mean. A bishop will always move like a bishop. The color it is on, is an invariant of the game.

...

Fischer random chess - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For the rest of your post, I think you should start reading up on human brains.

 

[dybmh]

yes, it is false what natural language interprets. It is false what you interpret. and why it is false follows also immediately. Because that is not what the sentence says.

LOL. It is false because what is said IS false. Just as "All the Jews I know are atheists" is false. You want to pretend it's true, but it's not. The truth is "I don't know any Jewish-atheists".

You can't tell the difference. Not my problem.

So, looks like another failed attempt to correctly interpret your own mother language, assuming English is your mother language, which I start to seriously doubt.

And as it repeats many times, the empty set is therefore a subset of every set. Demonstration took about one line. Repeated several times. Uncontroversial. Easy. Inescapable. Like all demonstrations I showed.

Blah-blah-blah. The empty-set is disjointed from all other sets. Trying to prove anything by looking for elements is a fail.

therefore, my case is still untouched. As it is expected since it has a very simple mathematical proof. And mathematical proofs are difficult to challenge.

so, now it is your turn to show some evidence of your claims. Because you must have got it somewhere. I cannot imagine anyone making up that nonsense by himself. Namely: where did you see, in books, videos, training material, etc. that the empty set IS NOT, or MIGHT BE NOT a subset of every set? Where is it? is that really what they taught you at school? Do you still have that book you used for school?

where dod you get that from? I am really curious. If it was your teacher, I would really recommend to sue him, for teaching ridicolous falsehoods to small children.

Asked and answered repeatedly. Your so-called proofs and logic are not applicable in the real world.

 

[viole]

LOL. It is false because what is said IS false. Just as "All the Jews I know are atheists" is false. You want to pretend it's true, but it's not. The truth is "I don't know any Jewish-atheists".

You can't tell the difference. Not my problem

It does not say anything about being false. It simply says: natural language seems to suggest that there is at least one…., BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SENTENCE SAYS.

That is what we can hear at the point you mentioned. And that point, which I will count on another shooting in the foot, asserts exactly my point. That your entire case is based on misunderstanding of the meaning of English sentences, I am afraid. Which is equivalent to creating your alternative reality, and then convince yourself to read and hear things that do not exist.

Blah-blah-blah. The empty-set is disjointed from all other sets. Trying to prove anything by looking for elements is a fail.

AND? That is exactly the point. You can actually use this fact to prove that the empty set is a subset of every set.
you are still totally confused by the difference, which should be straightforward, between “being a member” and “being a subset”.

maybe it is really time to get a book, ANY BOOK on the subject, and work it out for yourself.

Asked and answered repeatedly. Your so-called proofs and logic are not applicable in the real world.

Why not? Are you telling us that classical logic is not applicable in the real world?

what kind of logic do you apply, then? Assuming, of course, that you apply any

OK, I offer you to escape that corner you put yourself in. Also because discussing those basic stuff for some long is becoming comical.

I will change my claim:

- According to classical logic, all the Jews I know are Atheists.

feel better now?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Fischer random chess - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For the rest of your post, I think you should start reading up on human brains.

That variant of the game does not break the bishops rule. Therefore, irrelevant.

The rest of your post is equivalent to: I cannot find a place where she asks more than systematically applying simple logical rules.
therefore, irrelevant, too.

ciao

- viole

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That variant of the game does not break the bishops rule. Therefore, irrelevant.

The rest of your post is equivalent to: I cannot find a place where she asks more than systematically applying simple logical rules.
therefore, irrelevant, too.

ciao

- viole

Rules of chess - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What ever.

 

[wellwisher]

Is religion dying i.e. waning in popularity?

Well, you guys are all old, so maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd...

Haha jk

You guys have a certain perspective.

As the youngins take the places of you lot, do you think religion will be as popular or influential?

Atheism seems to be on the rise. Institutionalized religion has traumatized much of millennials and I'm betting gen z too. I get mixed signals when I try to gauge the populace's ever changing opinion on religion. Will the millennials and gen z let religion be a dominating cultural force, as it has always been?

I think Christianity is dying but spirituality is rising. I don't think religion is dying. But I think it is possible. I think atheism and agnosticism will keep rising, and as a result organized religion will lose its influence.

If you apply the theory of evolution, religions have been around long enough; start of civilization, and they have been in control for the same amount of time, to have an impact on natural selection. One might be able to con people out of any given religion, but we may not be able to take religion out of people. You end up with bizarre religions like Liberalism, acting like a religion, while being in denial.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is religion dying i.e. waning in popularity?

Well, you guys are all old, so maybe I'm asking the wrong crowd...

Haha jk

You guys have a certain perspective.

As the youngins take the places of you lot, do you think religion will be as popular or influential?

Atheism seems to be on the rise. Institutionalized religion has traumatized much of millennials and I'm betting gen z too. I get mixed signals when I try to gauge the populace's ever changing opinion on religion. Will the millennials and gen z let religion be a dominating cultural force, as it has always been?

I think Christianity is dying but spirituality is rising. I don't think religion is dying. But I think it is possible. I think atheism and agnosticism will keep rising, and as a result organized religion will lose its influence.

The question is what purpose does institutionalized religion serve? Whatever you may think the answer may be, it's becoming clear that people are finding it somewhere else. People will always have faith in... something, but if the institutions want to remain relevant, they need to get with the times.

 

[dybmh]

It does not say anything about being false. It simply says: natural language seems to suggest that there is at least one…., BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SENTENCE SAYS.

Um, it sure does.

That is what we can hear at the point you mentioned. And that point, which I will count on another shooting in the foot, asserts exactly my point. That your entire case is based on misunderstanding of the meaning of English sentences, I am afraid. Which is equivalent to creating your alternative reality, and then convince yourself to read and hear things that do not exist.

No, you can't understand english sentences. See how that works?

AND? That is exactly the point. You can actually use this fact to prove that the empty set is a subset of every set.

You just contradicted yourself.

you are still totally confused by the difference, which should be straightforward, between “being a member” and “being a subset”.

I understand, I understand. It's a definition, not a proof.

maybe it is really time to get a book, ANY BOOK on the subject, and work it out for yourself.

I have worked it. They all fail the same way.

Why not? Are you telling us that classical logic is not applicable in the real world?

Sure. You're playing word games. It's semantics. No one values semantics in the real world. What you're doing is not logic. It's actually gross. Logic is supposed to prevent nonsense, not encourage it.

So, yes, there are techniques in classical logic which regularly produce paradoxes that render it not viable in real world situations. This is one of them.

The technique that is employed here, is called the material conditional. In english, "The implication is always true unless it is proven false." This is described by the following truth-table.

Starting to look familiar?

Technically, with no ambiguity, it's the material conditional, which describes "Not P or Q". I'm emphasizing "Not P or Q", because "All the Jews I know are atheists" does not match this form at all. Neither does "The empty set is a subset of every set". The only way to force it to work, is to change the meaning of the statement.



NOT VIABLE FOR THE REAL WORLD.

Sources:

Material conditional - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Truth table - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

what kind of logic do you apply, then? Assuming, of course, that you apply any

What every logical sane intelligent person uses. Natural deduction.

Natural deduction - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In logic and proof theory, natural deduction is a kind of proof calculus in which logical reasoning is expressed by inference rules closely related to the "natural" way of reasoning. This contrasts with Hilbert-style systems, which instead use axioms as much as possible to express the logical laws of deductive reasoning.​

​

Your method is based on axioms. It's faith based. My method rejects that; it's evidence-based.

​

A judgment is something that is knowable, that is, an object of knowledge. It is evident if one in fact knows it. Thus "it is raining" is a judgment, which is evident for the one who knows that it is actually raining; in this case one may readily find evidence for the judgment by looking outside the window or stepping out of the house. In mathematical logic however, evidence is often not as directly observable, but rather deduced from more basic evident judgments. The process of deduction is what constitutes a proof; in other words, a judgment is evident if one has a proof for it.​

​

The most important judgments in logic are of the form "A is true"​

The logic I use values what is *actually* true. Your version conflates vacuous truth with actual truth and permits paradoxes when applied to real world phenomena.

"All the Jews I know are atheists" IS a judgement. Without *actually* knowing any Jews, it is false.
"The empty-set is a subset of every set" IS a judgement. Without *actually* having any elements, it is false.

Empty-set intersected with any set = NULL
Empty-set union with any set = NULL

That's the simple truth. That's how intersected and union are defined. Subset is *actually* defined based on intersection and union. Both intersection and union fail. It is not *actually* a subset of any set. But, people pretend it is. Or have forgotten how subset is defined. Or they're just ignorant youtubers. People ignore these facts and make rules and follow them like faithful sheep. That's what you're doing. There is no *actual* proof for the empty-set as a subset of any set.

Yes, people make youtubes about it. And books are written that claim it's a proof. But they're wrong. People make youtubes and claim that Christianity is proven true. There's lot's of videos about that. People write books and claim Christianity is proven true. There's lots of books about that. The empty-set is a subset of every set is proven true, like Christianity is proven true. It's proven true like flying pigs are true, and invisible green martians are true, and theistic-atheists are true, etc. They all have the same so-called proof, they all have the same value.

OK, I offer you to escape that corner you put yourself in. Also because discussing those basic stuff for some long is becoming comical.

I think it's funny for an "gnostic" atheist to be so ignorant. So, ya know, I'm enjoying this.

I will change my claim:

- According to classical logic, all the Jews I know are Atheists.

feel better now?

Nope it's still false.

Case 1: P and Not P is always false.

If you don't know any Jews, the claim is *actually*:​

"All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews"​

​

"I don't know any Jews" = "I don't know any Jews that are athiests"​

​

This renders:​

"All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews that are atheists"​

P = "All the Jews I know are atheists"​

Not P = "I don't know any Jews that are atheists"​

​

( P and Not P ) is false. See below.​

"All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews that are atheists" is false.​

"I don't know any Jews" = "I don't know any Jews that are athiests" is false.​

"all the Jews I know are Atheists." is false IF "I don't know any Jews".​

​

https://math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/PandNotP.html

​

Case 2: Any positive assertion on an empty-set is automatically false.

Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

An affirmation is a statement affirming something of something, a negation is a statement denying something of something…It is clear that for every affirmation there is an opposite negation, and for every negation there is an opposite affirmation…Let us call an affirmation and a negation which are opposite a contradiction (De Interpretatione 17a25–35).​

If Socrates doesn't exist, “Socrates is wise” and its contrary “Socrates is not-wise” are both automatically false (since nothing—positive or negative—can be truly affirmed of a non-existent subject), while their respective contradictories “Socrates is not wise” (O) and “Socrates is not not-wise” (I) are both true. Similarly, for any object x, either x is red or x is not red—but x may be neither red nor not-red; if, for instance, x is a unicorn or a prime number.​

​

"All the Jews I know are atheists" is automatically false. Nothing can be truly affirmed of a non-existent subject.​

​

Case 3: The empty-set does not *actually* exist in classical logic

Empty domain - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

​

The best you can get is Trivialism. It is a trivial case BY CONVENTION. It cannot be proven. Deny it all you want, but that's all you have.​

​

Case 1, Case 2, Case 3... "All the Jews I know are athiests" is false. You can argue that it's *also* true. And I agree with that. Classical logic produces paradoxes when used in real world circumstances. It's not viable. So, there's a better way.

You lose again. Care to play again with quantifier logic?

 

[viole]

i don't know any Jews" = "I don't know any Jews that are athiests"

Clearly false. The “=“ sign means equivalence. And the left part is clearly not equivalent to the right part. in fact, the left part entails the right one, but the right one does not entail the left one. Mind boggling that you are still making such huge logical errors.

therefore, your entire argument is, once again, predicated on a false proposition, and all its conclusions are not sequiturs. And you could have spared yourself a lot of typing.

And it is indeed still the case that by applying the laws of classical logic, applied to deduce propositions from other propositions, the fact that I do not know any Jews, entails that all the Jews I know are Atheists. and demonstrably so. And you, in fact, provided one of them yourself, when you said that the empty set is disjoint from any other set. Even though, with all due respect, I am not holding my breath that you realize why.

QED

ciao

- viole

 

[Sargonski]

All the Jews I know are atheists.

Ciao

- viole

Right -- but are the heathens and heritics you associate with representative of the whole ?

 

[Sargonski]

Um, it sure does.



No, you can't understand english sentences. See how that works?



You just contradicted yourself.



I understand, I understand. It's a definition, not a proof.



I have worked it. They all fail the same way.



Sure. You're playing word games. It's semantics. No one values semantics in the real world. What you're doing is not logic. It's actually gross. Logic is supposed to prevent nonsense, not encourage it.

So, yes, there are techniques in classical logic which regularly produce paradoxes that render it not viable in real world situations. This is one of them.

The technique that is employed here, is called the material conditional. In english, "The implication is always true unless it is proven false." This is described by the following truth-table.

View attachment 77512

Starting to look familiar?

View attachment 77513

Technically, with no ambiguity, it's the material conditional, which describes "Not P or Q". I'm emphasizing "Not P or Q", because "All the Jews I know are atheists" does not match this form at all. Neither does "The empty set is a subset of every set". The only way to force it to work, is to change the meaning of the statement.

View attachment 77514

NOT VIABLE FOR THE REAL WORLD.

Sources:

Material conditional - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Truth table - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

What every logical sane intelligent person uses. Natural deduction.

Natural deduction - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

In logic and proof theory, natural deduction is a kind of proof calculus in which logical reasoning is expressed by inference rules closely related to the "natural" way of reasoning. This contrasts with Hilbert-style systems, which instead use axioms as much as possible to express the logical laws of deductive reasoning.​

​

Your method is based on axioms. It's faith based. My method rejects that; it's evidence-based.

​

A judgment is something that is knowable, that is, an object of knowledge. It is evident if one in fact knows it. Thus "it is raining" is a judgment, which is evident for the one who knows that it is actually raining; in this case one may readily find evidence for the judgment by looking outside the window or stepping out of the house. In mathematical logic however, evidence is often not as directly observable, but rather deduced from more basic evident judgments. The process of deduction is what constitutes a proof; in other words, a judgment is evident if one has a proof for it.​

​

The most important judgments in logic are of the form "A is true"​

The logic I use values what is *actually* true. Your version conflates vacuous truth with actual truth and permits paradoxes when applied to real world phenomena.

"All the Jews I know are atheists" IS a judgement. Without *actually* knowing any Jews, it is false.
"The empty-set is a subset of every set" IS a judgement. Without *actually* having any elements, it is false.

Empty-set intersected with any set = NULL
Empty-set union with any set = NULL

That's the simple truth. That's how intersected and union are defined. Subset is *actually* defined based on intersection and union. Both intersection and union fail. It is not *actually* a subset of any set. But, people pretend it is. Or have forgotten how subset is defined. Or they're just ignorant youtubers. People ignore these facts and make rules and follow them like faithful sheep. That's what you're doing. There is no *actual* proof for the empty-set as a subset of any set.

Yes, people make youtubes about it. And books are written that claim it's a proof. But they're wrong. People make youtubes and claim that Christianity is proven true. There's lot's of videos about that. People write books and claim Christianity is proven true. There's lots of books about that. The empty-set is a subset of every set is proven true, like Christianity is proven true. It's proven true like flying pigs are true, and invisible green martians are true, and theistic-atheists are true, etc. They all have the same so-called proof, they all have the same value.



I think it's funny for an "gnostic" atheist to be so ignorant. So, ya know, I'm enjoying this.



Nope it's still false.

Case 1: P and Not P is always false.

If you don't know any Jews, the claim is *actually*:​

"All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews"​

​

"I don't know any Jews" = "I don't know any Jews that are athiests"​

​

This renders:​

"All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews that are atheists"​

P = "All the Jews I know are atheists"​

Not P = "I don't know any Jews that are atheists"​

​

( P and Not P ) is false. See below.​

"All the Jews I know are atheists AND I don't know any Jews that are atheists" is false.​

"I don't know any Jews" = "I don't know any Jews that are athiests" is false.​

"all the Jews I know are Atheists." is false IF "I don't know any Jews".​

​

https://math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/PandNotP.html

​

View attachment 77516


Case 2: Any positive assertion on an empty-set is automatically false.

Contradiction (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

An affirmation is a statement affirming something of something, a negation is a statement denying something of something…It is clear that for every affirmation there is an opposite negation, and for every negation there is an opposite affirmation…Let us call an affirmation and a negation which are opposite a contradiction (De Interpretatione 17a25–35).​

If Socrates doesn't exist, “Socrates is wise” and its contrary “Socrates is not-wise” are both automatically false (since nothing—positive or negative—can be truly affirmed of a non-existent subject), while their respective contradictories “Socrates is not wise” (O) and “Socrates is not not-wise” (I) are both true. Similarly, for any object x, either x is red or x is not red—but x may be neither red nor not-red; if, for instance, x is a unicorn or a prime number.​

​

"All the Jews I know are atheists" is automatically false. Nothing can be truly affirmed of a non-existent subject.​

​

Case 3: The empty-set does not *actually* exist in classical logic

Empty domain - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

​

​

You lose again. Care to play again with quantifier logic?

Sorry to jump in but ... cutting and pasting a large amount of unrelated material from some website - is not an argument .. it is a pathetic attempt at deflection .. and so on this basis .. it is you is lost again .. the one lacking in logic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, my point. i am not sure what your point is. You seem to believe that having no elements, does not grant making statements about them. Which is obviously not the case.

For any property P:

• For every element of the empty set, the property P holds.

from Empty set - Wikipedia

so, if your math teacher taught you differently, I would sue him

ciao

- viole

If you don't know any Jews then the set is empty, the count is null, it is inaccurate to say all the Jews you know are atheists if it's true you don't know any.

I never said anything like that.
I simply claimed: all Jews I know are atheists.

Now, assuming I know no Jews, could you please show me how my claim is wrong?

Ciao

- viole

Because all the Jews you know are Pastafarian Islamic Christians. That's just as accurate as saying they are all atheists. If you don't know any you can't say what they are.
If I have no dice and say all of them are 10 sided, that claim is just false because I don't have any. If I say all the Martians I know are dead, there is no possible way for this to be logical as the premise that "all the Martians I know" cannot render a true conclusion regardless the rest of the claim because the first premises is not true.
All the Jews I know are atheists. This statement can be true. But when you stupilate I don't know any Jews then any claims about what they aren't or are just cannot follow a claim a statement of not knowing any.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sorry to jump in but ... cutting and pasting a large amount of unrelated material from some website - is not an argument .. it is a pathetic attempt at deflection .. and so on this basis .. it is you is lost again .. the one lacking in logic.

Do actually know how to refute his post or are you just saying that?

 

[viole]

P = "All the Jews I know are atheists"Not P = "I don't know any Jews that are atheists"

And here is another huge one of yours.

If P = "All the Jews I know are atheists" then, according to classical logic, it is not the case that "Not P = "I don't know any Jews that are atheists".

So, another logical fallacy in just a few steps. Must be your new record.

Needless to say, all your following conclusions are therefore non sequiturs, and can be safely be thrown away.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

If you don't know any Jews then the set is empty, the count is null, it is inaccurate to say all the Jews you know are atheists if it's true you don't know any.

According to classical logic, it is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

Clearly false. The “=“ sign means equivalence. And the left part is clearly not equivalent to the right part. in fact, the left part entails the right one, but the right one does not entail the left one. Mind boggling that you are still making such huge logical errors.

Of course it's "=".

"I don't know any Jews" = "I don't know any Jews that are atheists or thiests or cats or dogs or ..."

therefore, your entire argument is, once again, predicated on a false proposition, and all its conclusions are not sequiturs. And you could have spared yourself a lot of typing.

I made 3 cases, all of them show that your statement was false.

And it is indeed still the case that by applying the laws of classical logic,

The laws you're usig don't work in the real world.

applied to deduce propositions from other propositions, the fact that I do not know any Jews, entails that all the Jews I know are Atheists.

Nope.

"I do not know any Jews, entails that all the Jews I know are Atheists" is false.

"I do not know any Jews, entails that all the Jews I know are not Atheists" is true.

and demonstrably so.

You can't demonstrate any Jewish-atheists, if you don't *actually* know any Jews.

And you, in fact, provided one of them yourself, when you said that the empty set is disjoint from any other set. Even though, with all due respect, I am not holding my breath that you realize why.

Because it's disjointed from every set, the set CANNOT contain/obtain the element "atheist".

QED

Yup. It's your Quandry Error Defined

 

[Sargonski]

Do actually know how to refute his post or are you just saying that?

refute what ? Tell me what in that hodge podge of random gibberish you would like refuted .. or are you just pretending ?