Entailment: Its Ubiquity, Importance, And Expression

[bornagainathiest]

Alright, if you guys can see no value in it, then I guess that's that.

 

I've found others with whom to study this. So it's cool.

 

(Sighs.) I wondered if this would happen.

 

Legion, please take a deep breath and pause for a minute.

 

Nobody here's writing off what you're advocating. We just can't see how it works.

RankStranger's said that, Valk's said it and now I'm saying it. So this is not a chorus of persecution or any kind of vendetta, ok? For myself, I've been nothing but polite and couteous in my approach to you. I've also been repeatedly apologetic, because I half-anticipated that you'd get upset. Haven't I warned you that what I had to say would be difficult and even unpalatable for you? And if had I meant to offend, upset or persecute you, I wouldn't have gone to the effort of gently warning you and using carefully-worded, diplomatic language, would I?

 

Now, having said that, you did ask for skepticism and testing.

But could it be that you thought this would be a skeptical look only at the arrangement of certain symbols on the screen (e.g., why is A placed before X and not B?), rather than a wider skepticism of the whole of entailement itself? If so, then what we might have here is a misunderstanding. Maybe you were prepared for criticism of the fine details of entailment-ology but not criticism of the whole thing? For my part, I thought you'd okayed it for me to be critical of all of entailment. If that's so, then we were on different wavelengths, that's all. A misunderstanding, perhaps?

 

(Once again Legion, can you see how diplomatically I'm wording this message? Hardly the words of someone who's out to get you or trash something you see as valuable, right?)

 

Ok, now for the difficult part of this message.

What I'm about to write cuts both ways Legion. It applies to me just as much as it applies to you.

 

If I took the position that something I present in the forum was above criticism, then I'm setting myself up above everyone else. Ditto, for anyone presenting something for others to see. If a person will not permit what they post to be scrutinized, tested and laid open to criticism, then they are elevating themselves above the common and agreed standard of forum etiquette.

 

If I made claims about something but couldn't (or wouldn't) demonstrate how it works then surely I deserve it when others call me to account and declare that they cannot see how it works?

If I claim something to be valuable and useful, but couldn't (or wouldn't) demonstrate it's value, others can call me to account over this claim and they also have the right to declare that they can't see it's value, right?

 

Rightly or wrongly I consider each and every other member of this forum to be my equal, not my superior and not my subordinate. What applies to them, applies to me too - in equal measure.

 

Please note that we all have the right to call any Christian apologist to account in just the same way.

 

So Legion, will you accord us the right to be critical of everything you're advocating about entailment or not?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Legion]

I'm not going to spend my time trying to show you or convince you of the worth of this. Others and I find it worthy. Therefore I will study it with them.

[Guest Valk0010]

I'm not going to spend my time trying to show you or convince you of the worth of this. Others and I find it worthy. Therefore I will study it with them.

So you have a religious view about this and republicanism? Sorry to sound mean, but its hard to not be when you sound like a grade schooler.

[Legion]

I won't long attend these proceedings I believe. I think I've come to better see who comes here and why they do so.

[Guest Valk0010]

I won't long attend these proceedings I believe. I think I've come to better see who comes here and why they do so.

Well I was legitimately interested and didn't know what it was and the kinds of questions it answered, but I had no idea that you were looking for yes men and agreeing. Being sceptical to learn, must be a loss on you.

 

If you were looking to turn me off to the subject, you won.

[Legion]

Yeah man. Whatever you say.

[Legion]

I'm willing to be convinced. I just don't see it.

 

Willing to be convinced of what? What don't you see?

[bornagainathiest]

In the light of your last postings Legion, I must conclude the following.

 

1.

You consider me (Valk and Rank Stranger too?) unworthy of your time.

 

2.

You have made no effort whatsoever to meet me (or the others) even halfway on this. It seems that we must either learn and do everything on your terms or not at all.

 

3.

You seem to consider what you are advocating to be above criticism.

 

4.

You also seem to consider yourself to be above the principles of equality that operate throughout this forum.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Therefore, should we meet again in another thread where I have presented science-related information and should you call the value of what I've posted into doubt, here's how I will react.

 

I will invite and welcome your skepticism and criticism.

 

I have no at all problem being called to account for something I've posted. In fact, if you can demonstrate where and how there are falsehoods or errors I'll thank you for helping me to learn and grow. I consider everything I advocate worthy of inspection and scrutiny. Since I also consider my fellow forum members as worthy of my time and my effort, if anyone gives me their time and effort I will thank them for it. Consequently I thank you for the trouble you've gone to here.

 

But now I have nothing further to say on this matter and so I will now quit this thread.

 

Goodbye,

 

BAA.

[Guest Valk0010]

In the light of your last postings Legion, I must conclude the following.

 

1.

You consider me (Valk and Rank Stranger too?) unworthy of your time.

 

 

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks so.

[Legion]

In the light of your last postings Legion, I must conclude the following.

 

1.

You consider me (Valk and Rank Stranger too?) unworthy of your time.

 

2.

You have made no effort whatsoever to meet me (or the others) even halfway on this. It seems that we must either learn and do everything on your terms or not at all.

 

3.

You seem to consider what you are advocating to be above criticism.

 

4.

You also seem to consider yourself to be above the principles of equality that operate throughout this forum.

 

1. As people I think you are worthy of my time in the measure that your behavior allows.

 

2. Post #11 was an attempt to meet you halfway. Dynamic systems, such as those studied by vast numbers of scientists (e.g. physicists), can be understood in categorical terms. Much of theoretical science is currently cast in the language of dynamic systems (i.e. state spaces and state transitions), which in turn can be cast into categorical terms as endomaps.

 

3. You've not yet even criticized it. I was expecting you to pick up the language of dynamic systems.

 

4. I think I am inferior in many ways to other people, and I am superior in some few ways. My intuition in areas like this is superb, in my assessment. When you seem to miss the relevance of these considerations, I am inclined to believe that your intuition, in this particular domain, is not as attuned as mine. But no doubt, in many, many other areas your abilities far surpass my own.

[RankStranger]

I'm willing to be convinced. I just don't see it.

 

Willing to be convinced of what? What don't you see?

 

Let's start with the easy one:

 

What's the advantage of making cause/effect statements in this math-ish notation rather than writing a sentence? Does this add something to the discussion? Does it clarify something? Does it simplify something? Or am I missing the point entirely?

[Guest Valk0010]

If A is legion starting this thread.

 

If B was legion was legion's intended response to A.

 

And C is what happened. If we use purely entailment or causality as a method of understanding things then we are left with an absurd conclusion of A causing C. We have to consider B before we say A caused C.

 

So I guess, to reduce a point I tried to make earlier that you ignored. What is the explanatory scope of "entailment." And if its limited then what is its use? How does it apply to the world we live in. Can "entailment" explain say the arrival of consciousness to the human species, as a example? Can causality be the only thing used, or you asking us to consider it, among other methods?

 

Putting it another way, if cause is key to determining knowledge, then why do we see obvious limitations to that, like consciousness or even abiogenesis or how about the "big bang".

 

Am I trapped in conventional wisdom? I am having trouble seeing the application in this, without it answering some seemingly basic questions.

[Legion]

Let's start with the easy one:

 

What's the advantage of making cause/effect statements in this math-ish notation rather than writing a sentence? Does this add something to the discussion? Does it clarify something? Does it simplify something? Or am I missing the point entirely?

 

As I tried to show in the opening post, I think many sentences in natural language can be cast in a categorical form. Take this sentence for instance...

 

"I think, the presence of a dog implies the presence of a mammal."

 

Now I will try to show an incremental transformation of this sentence into categorical form.

 

"I think: dog implies mammal."

"I think: dog --> mammal."

"I think: D --> M."

"t: D --> M"

 

I believe among the advantages of this form of expression is that the implications we draw are made explicit, and if others are skeptical of these statements then they may generally do so along lines such as...

 

"I doubt this implication holds."

"I doubt your thinking exists."

"I doubt your thinking gives rise to this implication."

"I doubt mammals exist."

"I doubt dogs exist."

 

So it has various uses simply as a rhetorical device, to communicate information and to be skeptical of information, and to derive information about skeptics.

[Guest Valk0010]

If it means anything, you proves me wrong. I apologize. Ya impress me in a good way sometimes.

[Legion]

If it means anything, you proves me wrong. I apologize. Ya impress me in a good way sometimes.

 

I appreciate you saying so Valk. However this thread has been somewhat of a watershed event for me. Before I started this thread, at the request of Rank Stranger, I was three "friends" richer than I am now.

 

Look, I know that I can often be a bellicose, arrogant, pompous jerk. But I thought maybe if I offered something to you guys which I thought was useful, or relevant, that you might over look my flaws, and try to see the utility of it for yourselves, and perhaps employ these ideas to your own unique benefit.

 

The general tenor of this thread has left me feeling disappointed, because I thought I was offering you guys some of the cream of my thinking and in return I received near unmitigated static.

 

So I've lost some "friends", and I've learned a lesson. I suppose next time I'll offer you something of a more direct and immediate utility, like a paid trip to your local grocery store.

[RankStranger]

If it means anything, you proves me wrong. I apologize. Ya impress me in a good way sometimes.

 

I appreciate you saying so Valk. However this thread has been somewhat of a watershed event for me. Before I started this thread, at the request of Rank Stranger, I was three "friends" richer than I am now.

 

Look, I know that I can often be a bellicose, arrogant, pompous jerk. But I thought maybe if I offered something to you guys which I thought was useful, or relevant, that you might over look my flaws, and try to see the utility of it for yourselves, and perhaps employ these ideas to your own unique benefit.

 

The general tenor of this thread has left me feeling disappointed, because I thought I was offering you guys some of the cream of my thinking and in return I received near unmitigated static.

 

So I've lost some "friends", and I've learned a lesson. I suppose next time I'll offer you something of a more direct and immediate utility, like a paid trip to your local grocery store.

 

Friendship shouldn't require that people only say the things that you agree with and/or want to hear.

 

I tried to engage you in something that you clearly find important. And I still don't 'get' it. So that's that.

[Legion]

Friendship shouldn't require that people only say the things that you agree with and/or want to hear.

 

If the participants in this thread merely agreed with me, then I would also find that less than optimal. My vision of a near ideal would have been something like....

 

"This is in fact important, and you're close to it Legion, but you're not quite there yet. Let me show you why."

 

I tried to engage you in something that you clearly find important. And I still don't 'get' it. So that's that.

 

I suppose so.

[RankStranger]

Well since apparently once again on your shit-list for not responding in an approved manner... I'm just going to keep asking questions. You know- carrying on a conversation like a somewhat normal person would do. Feel free to respond as you like- or not.

 

I 'get' that this entailment notation is an attempt to make cause/effect statements more explicit- that much is obvious. What I don't 'get' is this: when you make these statements more explicit- do they actually fit reality? I mean, reality isn't all that cut & dry.

 

For instance: what is a mammal? Well, sure dogs, cows and people are mammals. But what about platypuses and the like? We CALL them mammals- but they're clearly different in a number of ways. Some of those 'mammals' lay eggs for fuck's sake. So can you really use 'mammal' as a boolean operator?

 

What about 'dog'? Yeah, my dachhund is clearly a dog. But what about a coyote- is that a dog? What if that coyote is 1/8 dog (they're out there)? What about a fox?

 

Now I already kinda suspect what an appropriate answer to this question would be, but I'm interested in how you'd approach it.

 

 

 

 

Second question: Can you do operations with this entailment notation? I mean, can you do something akin to addition/multiplication, or the like? Do you build proofs with it? Or do you just post it on forums to prove how smart you are?

 

(it's a fucking joke- calm down. And it wouldn't be funny if I didn't think it was at least kinda true)

[Guest Valk0010]

If it means anything, you proves me wrong. I apologize. Ya impress me in a good way sometimes.

 

I appreciate you saying so Valk. However this thread has been somewhat of a watershed event for me. Before I started this thread, at the request of Rank Stranger, I was three "friends" richer than I am now.

 

Look, I know that I can often be a bellicose, arrogant, pompous jerk. But I thought maybe if I offered something to you guys which I thought was useful, or relevant, that you might over look my flaws, and try to see the utility of it for yourselves, and perhaps employ these ideas to your own unique benefit.

 

The general tenor of this thread has left me feeling disappointed, because I thought I was offering you guys some of the cream of my thinking and in return I received near unmitigated static.

 

So I've lost some "friends", and I've learned a lesson. I suppose next time I'll offer you something of a more direct and immediate utility, like a paid trip to your local grocery store.

If you mean what you just said here, I take back what I said. Your an asshole. Your a stuck up emotionally retarded brat that as a 40 year old man belives its cool to act like he is in second grade. FUCK YOU FUCK YOU FUCK YOU. And if saying this makes your little feelings upset. DEAL. Kiss my ass, fucktard.

[RankStranger]

If it means anything, you proves me wrong. I apologize. Ya impress me in a good way sometimes.

 

I appreciate you saying so Valk. However this thread has been somewhat of a watershed event for me. Before I started this thread, at the request of Rank Stranger, I was three "friends" richer than I am now.

 

Look, I know that I can often be a bellicose, arrogant, pompous jerk. But I thought maybe if I offered something to you guys which I thought was useful, or relevant, that you might over look my flaws, and try to see the utility of it for yourselves, and perhaps employ these ideas to your own unique benefit.

 

The general tenor of this thread has left me feeling disappointed, because I thought I was offering you guys some of the cream of my thinking and in return I received near unmitigated static.

 

So I've lost some "friends", and I've learned a lesson. I suppose next time I'll offer you something of a more direct and immediate utility, like a paid trip to your local grocery store.

If you mean what you just said here, I take back what I said. Your an asshole.

 

Of course he's an asshole. So am I. So are MOST people I know.

 

What does it matter?

[Guest Valk0010]

If it means anything, you proves me wrong. I apologize. Ya impress me in a good way sometimes.

 

I appreciate you saying so Valk. However this thread has been somewhat of a watershed event for me. Before I started this thread, at the request of Rank Stranger, I was three "friends" richer than I am now.

 

Look, I know that I can often be a bellicose, arrogant, pompous jerk. But I thought maybe if I offered something to you guys which I thought was useful, or relevant, that you might over look my flaws, and try to see the utility of it for yourselves, and perhaps employ these ideas to your own unique benefit.

 

The general tenor of this thread has left me feeling disappointed, because I thought I was offering you guys some of the cream of my thinking and in return I received near unmitigated static.

 

So I've lost some "friends", and I've learned a lesson. I suppose next time I'll offer you something of a more direct and immediate utility, like a paid trip to your local grocery store.

If you mean what you just said here, I take back what I said. Your an asshole.

 

Of course he's an asshole. So am I. So are MOST people I know.

 

What does it matter?

And fuck you to rank if you going to defend him.

[RankStranger]

And fuck you to rank if you going to defend him.

 

You were fully aware that Legion was an asshole when you engaged him- this isn't news. He's been this way for years.

[Guest Valk0010]

And fuck you to rank if you going to defend him.

 

You were fully aware that Legion was an asshole when you engaged him- this isn't news. He's been this way for years.

Yep and saying

 

I suppose next time I'll offer you something of a more direct and immediate utility, like a paid trip to your local grocery store.

Is quiet possibly one of the coldest things I have EVER ever heard him say to me within the context of how he framed it. That to me personally made him go from asshole(I can deal with that), to shitty human being(cant deal with that.)

[Guest Valk0010]

Oh and legion. I have you on ignore. And I am going to avoid you at every opportunity. As you once said to me. "I am done with you."

[Legion]

Now we're talking! Thank you Rank.

 

Yes, these statements or assertions of entailment are intended to make the communication of causal relations more explicit. And I agree. Reality is not very cut and dry. But I also believe entailment is not so cut and dry. I find it is a very rich relation. And the implications we draw in our minds may not have any bearing at all on causality.

 

For instance I may assert....

 

"I believe the value of Pi implies the moon is made of cheese."

 

This assertion is dubious in several aspects, HOWEVER it's dubiousness is made clearer by following a certain form of expression. The form aids the skeptic.

 

Yes, we can derive other relations from given relations. Among the simplest in my mind is composed implication. If we can know that dog implies mammal, and know that mammal implies animal then we can safely know that dog implies animal.

 

Another more elaborate derived relation is products. For instance, in the category of sets, if we know that each card in a deck (set) of cards has an associated rank and suit this may be expressed categorically. We may state, "The suit of a card in the deck implies diamond, heart, club or spade." This is might be expressed as... suit:D-->S." And, "The rank of a card on the deck implies 2,3,4 ... Q,K,A" or rank:D-->R." We note that these statements share a common domain, D. And we may note that certain other relations must hold which qualify the deck of cards as being a Cartesian product of ranks and suits.

 

The dual corollary of this is that sums (or 'co-products') may also exist when these statements share a common range (or co-domain).

And there are many, many other relations which may obtain within any given category.

 

Or do you just post it on forums to prove how smart you are?

 

 

I've tried to apply my mind to the acquistion of understandings. I hope to further this greed, and help others further theirs. I am confident that others may use their native intelligence to internalize this for themselves, and whoop my ass at my own game.