If I am immortal, then I will soon die

[Speakpigeon]

More generally, when two people disagree about whether sentence A implies sentence B, it will always never be a disagreement about whether proposition P implies proposition Q, almost always a disagreement about the interpretation(s) of the sentences.

Trying to deduce anything about logic without even as much as trying to clarify exactly what propositions your subjects gave the sentences in the process of evaluating your examples is bound to be fruitless.

I can only repeat myself.

When we interpret arguments, we go for the proximate definition.

This is exactly what nearly everybody who commented did.

The first definition given by dictionaries is as follows:

immortal
1. not subject to death or decay; having perpetual life

Any other definition is equivocation.

This definition makes the argument invalid.

I also don't understand how the question could possibly not make sense when most people who commented and voted seem to have understood it perfectly.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Dracula is not subject to death or decay. The definition is vague enough to match both readings.

You are contradicting yourself.

It has to be significant that the only one to find that the question doesn't make sense is also the one who has a training in mathematical logic.
EB

Not at all.

The argument expressed by the most prominent reading of your sentences is clearly invalid, I concur with everyone else insofar.

But your exposition is ambiguous in multiple ways - in whatsense of immortality we have in mind, in whether we read the future tense as destined reality or probabilistic modality, in the standard of comparison for the intrinsically vague term "soon". Most of the arguments you get by specifying those variables are indeed invalid, many result in a contradiction. Given enough context though, there could even be a causal link: if there's a manhunt by mortals for the undead and you've been taken captive on suspicion of being one of them, you could very well say exactly what you gave us while waiting for the test results. Since you haven't specified any one particular argument, asking whether it, the argument, is valid makes no sense.

The difference isn't that im trained in mathematical logic (I'm not, beyond high school level, and picking up little bits here and there where they became relevant), the difference is that im keyed to detecting linguistic ambiguity.

No, you didn't "concur with everyone else". The poll is about the validity of the argument, not about my comments, and you voted the question "nonsense", whereas everybody else voted "not valid". And now you are discussing the validity of the argument! Whoa.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Read again:

Intuition
1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

To prove theorems, mathematicians typically use their intuition. To prove a theorem, mathematicians have to guess, literally, what possibly valid conclusion there is even before they are in a position to produce a formal proof that it is valid.

Some formal proofs are so long and complex that the probability that mathematicians just stumble by chance on a valid conclusion is too small to explain that mathematicians routinely find valid conclusions.

Conjectures in particular are interesting since they are admitted by most mathematicians, sometimes for a very long period of time, even though no formal proof is available. The fact that some conjectures get successfully formally proven proves beyond any reasonable doubt that mathematicians are capable of guessing valid conclusions. Many well-known mathematicians routinely talk of the importance of intuition in their work. I don't think anyone needs more empirical evidence than that.
EB

Speakpigeon a faculty is a thing presumed in the brain that carries a capacity to perform some, in this case, some ethereal task. In my post I provided significant evidence that the terms insight and intuition where terms of presumption rather than terms describing some material capability that can be found even by aggregating known human brain capacities. They are like God they are presumptions covering numerous sins.

Better that if you read again.

But, point by point here goes.

Mathematicians use externally defined symbols to prove theories and theorems. I'm going to concentrate on the material, ergo, theory. Tanner explains that

"...a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made,"

In every instance materiality continuity is maintained.

A mathematical theorem is

a result that has been proved to be true (using operations and facts that were already known).

from https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/theorem.html note parenthesis conditions.

Intuition is neither an operation, fact, already materially known. It is a cover capturing some presumed ability like those presumed by examination of bumps on one's head. Not a very satisfying way to establish facts a history has shown. May I say falsified?

As for conjectures it's kind of like "I know this is true but I don't have the evidence or knowledge to prove it yet". Time passes, information is gathered, proof generated IAC with operations and facts already known.

For instance we are beginning to understand why self organization of matter occurs.  Self-organization Simply put it's a mechanism for conservation of energy in matter given the structure of our reality.

However this isn't a science forum it's a philosophical forum so I'm done. Now that you have a nice discussion going with Jokodo I expect I'll learn more. I do see why he chooses to discuss your comments on the proposition you post since the proposition is so unanchored and you aren't. It's in the commentary where one expects to find linkage between immortal and die.

 

[steve_bank]

A match made in heaven.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Speakpigeon a faculty is a thing presumed in the brain that carries a capacity to perform some, in this case, some ethereal task. In my post I provided significant evidence that the terms insight and intuition where terms of presumption rather than terms describing some material capability that can be found even by aggregating known human brain capacities. They are like God they are presumptions covering numerous sins.

Better that if you read again.

But, point by point here goes.

Mathematicians use externally defined symbols to prove theories and theorems. I'm going to concentrate on the material, ergo, theory. Tanner explains that

"...a scientific theory is the framework for observations and facts. Theories may change, or the way that they are interpreted may change, but the facts themselves don't change. Tanner likens theories to a basket in which scientists keep facts and observations that they find. The shape of that basket may change as the scientists learn more and include more facts. "For example, we have ample evidence of traits in populations becoming more or less common over time (evolution), so evolution is a fact but the overarching theories about evolution, the way that we think all of the facts go together might change as new observations of evolution are made,"

In every instance materiality continuity is maintained.

A mathematical theorem is

a result that has been proved to be true (using operations and facts that were already known).

from https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/theorem.html note parenthesis conditions.

Intuition is neither an operation, fact, already materially known. It is a cover capturing some presumed ability like those presumed by examination of bumps on one's head. Not a very satisfying way to establish facts a history has shown. May I say falsified?

As for conjectures it's kind of like "I know this is true but I don't have the evidence or knowledge to prove it yet". Time passes, information is gathered, proof generated IAC with operations and facts already known.

For instance we are beginning to understand why self organization of matter occurs.  Self-organization Simply put it's a mechanism for conservation of energy in matter given the structure of our reality.

However this isn't a science forum it's a philosophical forum so I'm done. Now that you have a nice discussion going with Jokodo I expect I'll learn more. I do see why he chooses to discuss your comments on the proposition you post since the proposition is so unanchored and you aren't. It's in the commentary where one expects to find linkage between immortal and die.

What's your point?!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Theorem...

In mathematics, a theorem is a non-self-evident statement that has been proven to be true, either on the basis of generally accepted statements such as axioms, or on the basis previously established statements such as other theorems. A theorem is hence a logical consequence of the axioms, with a proof of the theorem being a logical argument which establishes its truth through the inference rules of a deductive system. As a result, the proof of a theorem is often interpreted as justification of the truth of the theorem statement. In light of the requirement that theorems be proved, the concept of a theorem is fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific law, which is experimental.

For the few people who understand logic here, a theorem is never proven true. Mathematicians like to say you can't falsify a theorem.

Well, they are wrong, but it is still true that a theorem is not proven true since a theorem is nothing but the conclusion of a valid proof (at least in principle, since it may be that some proofs are not valid that are believed valid).

This means that the theorem is not proven true. It is proven.

The theorem, if proven, will be true IF the premises of the proof are true. Conditional IF.

So, no, a theorem is not proven true. Maybe a theorem is true, but it is not proven true. A theorem is the conclusion of a valid proof. That is, if you accept the premises of the proof as true, then you should logically accept the conclusion, and therefore the theorem itself.

Yet, that you believe the premises true doesn't mean they are true. Typically, mathematical theorems are all conclusions from some arbitrary set of axioms which might or might not be true, making the theorems themselves possibly true, possibly false.

Again, a theorem may well be true, but it is not proven true. Proven, yes, in the sense that there is a proof which is valid, but since we don't know that the premises are true, the truth of the proven theorem is conditional on the truth of the premises. Which is definitely not what we mean when we say that something is true. Of course,we can all believe otherwise, but then this will be a belief.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

So you are saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is not proven true?

Wiki presents evidence by many that show otherwise. You know Euclid, Einstein, .....

 Pythagorean theorem

falsified again you are.

I enjoy your correct recitation of a general philosophical discussion. However we are dealing with math which is often applied in science practice. Things are often different there which is why you seem to be so often bumping up against this reality wall.

Maybe too much philosophy and too little math? Or, as you might say too much science too little philosophy.

As for your previous post Speakpigeon my point is your assertion(s) about intuition are built on sand which is known to shift.

Now I'm not going to say that many so called theorems are constructed in the manners which you suggest. They often are. But that's why I tend to go with scientific practices which usually avoids such blue sky tactics.

Induction? You must have bumped in to that concept. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/ Even Hume accepts that reality is not proven true it's just that we've found a way to show that it can explain ever more by applying a building block process as we build theory theorem by theorem based on observation built on previous observation. And I accept that the Pythagorean Theorem breaks down in different dimensional arrangements only to be rescued by adding theorems bridging those revealed gaps.

Sorry if I appear as unsympathetic. It's just that when one includes every manner of of speculative approach which you convey as intuitional. We differ there. Most theorem building in the past 400 years has been based on inductive processes rather than deductive processes. Sure, the a scientific argument begins with a deductive statement. However that statement is always based on preceding inductive processes rather than some speculation from whence no one knows. If you accept that we have no difference to discuss.

FDI

 

[Speakpigeon]

So you are saying that the Pythagorean Theorem is not proven true?

Indeed. It is proven, many times over, again and again by successive generations of mathematicians and school children. It is never proven true.

If you understood logic you'd know that logic doesn't prove anything true. We have to rely on our premises which can never be proven if not by assuming other premises, and so we have our classical regress argument.

Like it or not, understand it or not.

As for your previous post Speakpigeon my point is your assertion(s) about intuition are built on sand which is known to shift.

LOL. This is a very impressive argument.

Now I'm not going to say that many so called theorems are constructed in the manners which you suggest. They often are. But that's why I tend to go with scientific practices which usually avoids such blue sky tactics.

Induction? You must have bumped in to that concept.

LOL. You are assuming a lot.

This is typical of a certain kind of people. People who have an axe to grind. Dogmatic people.

So here you are thinking without the least foundation that I believe intuition pops out of a clear blue sky. YET, did I ever suggested that much? No. Please quote me where I suggested intuition pops out of a clear blue sky!

Me, I think from personal experience that people who understand intuition because they rely heavily on it for their work, like indeed mathematicians, but essentially any intellectual workers, which includes many manual workers, know that intuition is made possible by the familiarity we have with the subject matter, which requires essentially hard work, such as reading, observing, discussing, pondering, trying this and that.

Please quote me where I suggested intuition pops out of a clear blue sky!

You are truly appalling .

Most theorem building in the past 400 years has been based on inductive processes rather than deductive processes.

Where did I claim the process was based on deduction?

You are appalling.

Look again at the definition of intuition I already provided twice:

Intuition
1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

And try to see where you went wrong.

Clue:

Show

assumption

EB

 

[DBT]

If something is proven, it is taken to be true.

 

[fromderinside]

Indeed. It is proven, many times over, again and again by successive generations of mathematicians and school children. It is never proven true.

Intuition
1. The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

EB

You need to read the Wiki piece again. There are two explicit declarations that the theorem is true. It's for you to figure out why.

Definition of faculty

1: ABILITY, POWER: such as
a: innate or acquired ability to act or doman … how infinite in faculty— William Shakespeare
b: an inherent capability, power, or function the faculty of hearing
c: any of the powers of the mind (such as will, reason, or instinct) formerly held by psychologists to form a basis for the explanation of all mental phenomena
d: natural aptitude


has a faculty for saying the right things

What can I say. I agree one has the ability to acquire the knack for often saying the right things which I agree is what might be the situation with intuition. Not the same as faculty - suffers from formerly fate - at all and not inherent at all. The other bolded terms are not demonstrated in any measured way. Whereas hearing had been verified as being a faculty. So failing to hitch ones star to any definition that holds water Speakpigeon​'s argument for intuition dies of thirst.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If something is proven, it is taken to be true.

Sure, but it is not because we routinely believe other people have a mind that other people a have mind.

We are logical being and logic in itself doesn't prove anything true. What it does is prove that IF premises are true, then the conclusion is true. And how do we know that the premises are true? All we can do is make up another set of premises to prove the first ones. And we thereby go into infinite regress. This is why we don't know the material world. We can only believe on the basis of the premises we happen to believe, i.e. our perception. This is the same in mathematics. People keep saying I know this, I know that, of course they will, if they didn't they wouldn't get a job or a flirt or the bowl of beans. We are good pretenders and we all do it.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

You need to read the Wiki piece again. There are two explicit declarations that the theorem is true. It's for you to figure out why.

So suddenly Wiki is the truth sayer? LOL.

I didn't provide the link to support what I say. I know I am rather isolated being rational and rigorous. These dudes are mostly PhD's repeating again and again what they have learnt at school. Nothing to impress me.

Definition of faculty

1: ABILITY, POWER: such as
a: innate or acquired ability to act or doman … how infinite in faculty— William Shakespeare
b: an inherent capability, power, or function the faculty of hearing
c: any of the powers of the mind (such as will, reason, or instinct) formerly held by psychologists to form a basis for the explanation of all mental phenomena
d: natural aptitude


has a faculty for saying the right things

What can I say. I agree one has the ability to acquire the knack for often saying the right things which I agree is what might be the situation with intuition. Not the same as faculty - suffers from formerly fate - at all and not inherent at all. The other bolded terms are not demonstrated in any measured way. Whereas hearing had been verified as being a faculty. So failing to hitch ones star to any definition that holds water Speakpigeon​'s argument for intuition dies of thirst.

LOL. So you think memory is not a faculty humans have?

Memory is the faculty of the brain by which data or information is encoded, stored, and retrieved when needed.

Intuition, same.

Memory and intuition are senses of perception.

Memory is perception of the part of our brain where the data which is the integration of past perception is stored. You don't remember anything? No wonder.

Intuition is our perception of the part of our brain where the logic of our experience has been integrated by our brain. Works like hellfire. We all do it. You should try it.

And I couldn't care less what you think has been verified or measured by scientists.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Single statements are neither valid nor invalid, only arguments are. The statement in the OP isn't an argument, so it's neither valid nor invalid.

(By the way, my post up until this parenthetical is an example of an argument, and a valid one.)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Depends what is meant by the vague and ill-defined terms "immortal" and "soon".

If they're a Highlander immortal and the Kurgan is chasing them down, then it's a valid and logical statement, since the fact of their immortality is the thing which is about to lead to their imminent death.

If they're talking about "soon" as compared to the potential infinite amount of time which they expect to live, then the heat death of the universe in a few trillion years means the date they're going to die is just around the corner, relatively speaking.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Single statements are neither valid nor invalid, only arguments are. The statement in the OP isn't an argument, so it's neither valid nor invalid.

Well, you are wrong.

Still, for the sake of argument, please justify your claim here. Or is it just something you believe?

This is actually an interesting point, and I am not sure that the logicians here even understand it. So, perhaps, if one could explain, that would be interesting for us all.
EB

 

[PyramidHead]

Single statements are neither valid nor invalid, only arguments are. The statement in the OP isn't an argument, so it's neither valid nor invalid.

Well, you are wrong.

Still, for the sake of argument, please justify your claim here. Or is it just something you believe?

This is actually an interesting point, and I am not sure that the logicians here even understand it. So, perhaps, if one could explain, that would be interesting for us all.
EB

I'm just using the standard definition of validity: https://www.britannica.com/topic/validity

Validity, In logic, the property of an argument consisting in the fact that the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Are you saying that the statement in the OP is intended to be an argument, rather than just a conditional? If so, what are the premises, what is the conclusion, and what logical rule justifies the conclusion given the premises?

 

[fromderinside]

LOL. So you think memory is not a faculty humans have?

Memory is the faculty of the brain by which data or information is encoded, stored, and retrieved when needed.

Intuition, same.

Wow. I spell it out and you find a new item to introduce. I chose to use the example in the definition which was the faculty of audition. We can argue to what extent perception, usually a level of processing making sense of information produced by sense faculties. I will agree that memory is a faculty that can provide objective material measures. But I specifically provided three articles explaining intuition and introspection are not measurable nor brain system associated. Why do you keep attaching your unverified 'faculty' by way of associating it with an actual faculty. Intuition is not a faculty because it is mentioned in the same sentence as audition or memory which are faculties even by uninformed admission. Saying is no longer adequate to qualify something you think people do as a faculty.

Again saying intuition is our perception of the part , unidentified, where logic has been integrated, unverified. Something works like hell fire by you fall far short of describing or even modelling it. I understand workload which degrades with task complexity and time on task and improves when chunking elements to be processed are used in everybody. But I don't understand intuition which is seen by some but never found measureable by anyone and is only accessible by introspection.

Don't play with your philosophical illusionary things. Try to make use of experimental philosophy by building a language that actually can yield results. IMHO that failure looks like why several attempts to begin an experimental philosophy has thus far failed every time it has been initiated.

Look. In audition we gave up on finding processes across languages that produced the possibility of machine language. Presently we settle for a few simple start stop rules and a huge barge of reference to produce multiple languages via one machine. So much for Chomsky. Yeah, he pisses me off. Just as Gould did in evolutionary theory.

 

[steve_bank]

As usual he dances around an obvious intellectual failure and starts with ad homs to avoid acknowledging the failure.

As Spock would say 'Most illogical, but the humans are emotional not logical'.

 

[DBT]

If something is proven, it is taken to be true.

Sure, but it is not because we routinely believe other people have a mind that other people a have mind.

We are logical being and logic in itself doesn't prove anything true. What it does is prove that IF premises are true, then the conclusion is true. And how do we know that the premises are true? All we can do is make up another set of premises to prove the first ones. And we thereby go into infinite regress. This is why we don't know the material world. We can only believe on the basis of the premises we happen to believe, i.e. our perception. This is the same in mathematics. People keep saying I know this, I know that, of course they will, if they didn't they wouldn't get a job or a flirt or the bowl of beans. We are good pretenders and we all do it.
EB

If the premises and their conclusion are proven to be sound and beyond reasonable doubt, the article, the thing being taken to be be true and factual is - by default - true beyond reasonable doubt because the premise and their conclusion are inseparable.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm just using the standard definition of validity: https://www.britannica.com/topic/validity

Validity, In logic, the property of an argument consisting in the fact that the truth of the premises logically guarantees the truth of the conclusion.

Well, tell me how or why an argument and a conditional are different from a logical perspective.

Are you saying that the statement in the OP is intended to be an argument, rather than just a conditional? If so, what are the premises, what is the conclusion, and what logical rule justifies the conclusion given the premises?

I didn't say it was an argument. It is a conditional.

And I asked whether the implication was valid, not whether the argument was valid.
EB