Re: An argument against modus ponens

george wrote:
on your side of the fence,
"if.." (and/or the function
"then..") immediately (if you like) launches us into a context where "if
P" yields P as true
is ALL that is happening. THE WHOLE purpose of "if/then" is to
EXCLUDE that
half of the models where P is false.

On Sep 6, 9:16 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:>
That's a very intelligent challenging point. I can counter it: your
"exclude" implies R.

Those are explicitly being
RULED OUT by
"if P".
Why would things other than P need to be "ruled out" if P was the only
contender?

You don't know your own antecedent of "things" here.
The things in question are models. The contenders are not P, Q, R, or
whatever.
When P is THE ONLY variable, the CONTENDERS are TRUE AND FALSE.

So all objects are alike in being either true or false? Objects are intermediately 'either'? and when they are either they are in a state of 'true or false'?

But it makes no difference. True and False are objects themselves. True is P and False is not P (R).

That's what this whole thing is about. P is true in half the models
and false in
the other half. "If P" just means we are throwing away 1 half. "If
~P" would throw
away the other half. This does not make P and ~P "different
contenders".
P is the only thing being contested here and there are two possible
outcomes
for the contest.

Either 1) How can P be both true and false? or 2) How does a possible P differ from a P?

Gotcha there boy. Kick Ass. Woof.
Bull***.

The whole purpose of saying "If P" is to launch us into a
subsequent context
where P is GUARANTEED to be true and where, therefore, its falsity
will entail any and every most ridiculous absurdity.
Doesn't work. "Guaranteed" - yes! - but against WHAT?!

Guarantees DON'T NEED to be AGAINST anything in particular.
Every one of these propositions or sentences or atoms or whatever-you-
want-to-
call-them can be true or false, but if we guarantee it one way, that
is not against
anything except maybe the denial of that same statement -- which was
ALREADY
the opposite of its denial even BEFORE there were any guarantees.

Then the denial needs a representation. If P represents the affirmation true then R must represent the denial false.

And, as it happens, if P is true, then Q follows.
But my point is that whether Q follows or not, or even whether "then"
always follows "if", or is a necessary adjunct to the grammar of "if",
an "if .." proposal sets up a context of truth and falsehood.
NO, DUMBASS. RATHER, the context of truth and falsehood
SETS UP THE POSSIBLITY OF "if/then", AND of 15 OTHER binary boolean
functions. It is MEANINGLESS to say "if" until AFTER you have
PREsupposed
a boolean context.
Don't blather me with obscure ideas like "the context of truth and
falsehood".

***.
There is nothing obscure about that, except to you personally, because
you're
an ignorant dip***.

You don't know what you yourself mean by it

I do so too, and so does everybody else who has ever actually studied
logic.
I just mean any and every context in which true and false are
understood.

except that it hopefully and mysteriously creates "truth and falsehood".

That's a pretty BIG FUCKING EXCEPTION, ISN'T IT??
Dumbass.

Beam me up
Scotty, the aliens are here.

There is nothing alien about the (opposite) concepts of same &
different.
Or about the concept of opposite.


Why do you keep pontificating all the time?
Why do you keep trying to ASSERT things?
You CAN'T do that because you DON'T KNOW ***!
Why don't you ASK SOME QUESTIONS??


.

Quantcast