Prove [Sythe]'s existence within a state

[Imagine]

Easy. I figured it out.

Claim: If Sythe is a real person, Sythe exists within a state.

Proof:
I'm going to use the contrapositive: If Sythe does not exist within a state, he is not a real person.

Suppose Sythe does not exist within a state. Then Sythe cannot live on land, for every piece of land is claimed by some state or other. So Sythe must either live on a boat, in which case, he is subject to maritime law, and is therefore in a state, must be airborne 24/7, lives in space, or must live in the ocean.

Sythe has repeatedly shown that he does not live on a flying object. So therefore, he must live in the ocean.

But no humans can live in the ocean, so Sythe must be an octopus, and is therefore not a real person.

QED

 

[Rubberundiez]

sythe lives in the bush.

 

Easy. I figured it out.

Claim: If Sythe is a real person, Sythe exists within a state.

Proof:
I'm going to use the contrapositive: If Sythe does not exist within a state, he is not a real person.

If a rock is heavy, then it will fall.

If a rock is not heavy, then it won't fall.

This is a fallacy called denying the antecedent. If you take introductory logic at university you will learn about it.

Suppose Sythe does not exist within a state. Then Sythe cannot live on land, for every piece of land is claimed by some state or other. So Sythe must either live on a boat, in which case, he is subject to maritime law, and is therefore in a state, must be airborne 24/7, lives in space, or must live in the ocean.

Sythe has repeatedly shown that he does not live on a flying object. So therefore, he must live in the ocean.

But no humans can live in the ocean, so Sythe must be an octopus, and is therefore not a real person.

QED

Land is not the same as a state. For example the state of Australia didn't exist before 1901, however the continent I'm standing on is 2 billion years old. The state is literally a piece of paper.

 

If a rock is heavy, then it will fall.

If a rock is not heavy, then it won't fall.

This is a fallacy called denying the antecedent. If you take introductory logic at university you will learn about it.





Land is not the same as a state. For example the state of Australia didn't exist before 1901, however the continent I'm standing on is 2 billion years old. The state is literally a piece of paper.

rofl gg

 

[ZippyGFX]

sit down

 

[Naice]

Doesn't Sythe live off the grid?

 

[XX_PLANKER_xx]

introductory logic

Only in Australia

(That does sound like a cool class tho, no banhammer plz sythe)

 

Only in Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

It's taught everywhere, apparently to empty classes judging by the logical prowess of the average sythe user.

 

[Imagine]

If a rock is heavy, then it will fall.

If a rock is not heavy, then it won't fall.

This is a fallacy called denying the antecedent. If you take introductory logic at university you will learn about it.

what?
That's the contrapositive...
P = Sythe is a person
Q = Sythe exists within a state.

If P then Q is logically equivalent to If not Q then not P...

Using your example, I said "if rock does not fall, then it is not heavy"

My claim is valid. Denying the antecedent would be claiming 'If not P then not Q', which is only true if condition P is equivalent to condition Q (And P => Q)

Land is not the same as a state. For example the state of Australia didn't exist before 1901, however the continent I'm standing on is 2 billion years old. The state is literally a piece of paper.

This is where I just start making shit up... No humans live in the ocean & X lives in the ocean => X is an octopus?

However, I still don't agree with your counterargument. Sure, land is not the same as a state. But unless you lived over 100 years ago (supposing you live in Australia now), you live on a piece of land controlled by the State of Australia, and hence exist "in" a state.

 

[XX_PLANKER_xx]

The title 'introductory logic' kind of implies that anyone who takes it lacks logic.

I didnt actually look for the course. -.-

Isnt this the sand box?

 

[SuF]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics

It's taught everywhere, apparently to empty classes judging by the logical prowess of the average sythe user.

Fun class. I doubt many people take it outside of the math / computer science world.

 

what?
That's the contrapositive...
P = Sythe is a person
Q = Sythe exists within a state.

If P then Q is logically equivalent to If not Q then not P...

Using your example, I said "if rock does not fall, then it is not heavy"

Even if this can be applied (dubious, as a rock might not fall due to being supported by something, for example) you're still assuming the initial point. Your formal logic is just a tautology.

However, I still don't agree with your counterargument. Sure, land is not the same as a state.

If you agree that land is not the same as a state then your entire argument is baseless.

But unless you lived over 100 years ago (supposing you live in Australia now), you live on a piece of land controlled by the State of Australia, and hence exist "in" a state.

This is just equivocation fallacy. Presence within is not the same as controlled by. Further, 'the state' doesn't control anything. Only people control things. People doing business as 'the state' may control land by shooting anyone who disagrees with them. This is not the same as an entity called 'the state' controlling something. A group of people, however so named, does not have volition, only individuals have volition. Therefore a group, however so named, cannot act in any way. This includes the act of control.

But the easiest way to point out why this is ludicrous is by swapping the state for another fictional entity:

If I asked you to prove my existence within IBM, would you tell me I exist within the company IBM because I sat in the lobby of a building controlled by people doing business as IBM?

 

[ASAPgang]

Big rich told me he lives in the state of NSW, Aus. Prize pls

 

Big rich told me he lives in the state of NSW, Aus. Prize pls

**geographical region referred to as** NSW, Australia

 

[Imagine]

Even if this can be applied (dubious, as a rock might not fall due to being supported by something, for example) you're still assuming the initial point. Your formal logic is just a tautology.

Well, if the rock might not fall because it is supported, your initial implication is also wrong. The contrapositive always has the same truth value as the implication itself. (Link)

Also, I supposed that you did not live within a state. And then 'derived' that you were not a real person. Do you disagree with my original premise that you are a real person? I thought that was a pretty safe thing to assume...

If you agree that land is not the same as a state then your entire argument is baseless.



This is just equivocation fallacy. Presence within is not the same as controlled by. Further, 'the state' doesn't control anything. Only people control things. People doing business as 'the state' may control land by shooting anyone who disagrees with them. This is not the same as an entity called 'the state' controlling something. A group of people, however so named, does not have volition, only individuals have volition. Therefore a group, however so named, cannot act in any way. This includes the act of control.

But the easiest way to point out why this is ludicrous is by swapping the state for another fictional entity:

If I asked you to prove my existence within IBM, would you tell me I exist within a company because I used the rest rooms in a building full of people with IBM name tags?

That was the point of the post :S, I knew I had used fallacies. That's why I posted it in the sandbox and not SFA. That's also why I avoided saying that you were controlled by the state.

Also, about the IBM example, I'd tell you that you exist within the companies building, which is private property, so they could remove you from the building if they so wished.

 

Well, if the rock might not fall because it is supported, your initial implication is also wrong. The contrapositive always has the same truth value as the implication itself. (Link)

That's why it has no truth value because it's a tautology. You're assuming the initial point.

That was the point of the post :S, I knew I had used fallacies. That's why I posted it in the sandbox and not SFA. That's also why I avoided saying that you were controlled by the state.

Also, about the IBM example, I'd tell you that you exist within the companies building, which is private property, so they could remove you from the building if they so wished.

No, again this is bullshit. The company cannot own anything because it (the company) doesn't exist. A company is just a piece of paper (I know, I have several.) At best, the shareholders (who are real physical entities) own the building (another real physical entity) in common under an agreement called a company.

Companies and states are what are known in law as 'legal fictions'. The word fiction is used as an acknowledgement that these things DO NOT EXIST EXCEPT ON PAPER.

My point is that I never signed up, so how can I be part of it?

 

[Imagine]

That's why it has no truth value because it's a tautology. You're assuming the initial point.

I'm confused as to what you're saying. Yes, I assumed P => Q... I still don't see why that's not safe to assume though. You're a person. If I prove that all people exist within a state, then I've proven that you exist within a state.

No, again this is bullshit. The company cannot own anything because it (the company) doesn't exist. A company is just a piece of paper (I know, I have several.) At best, the shareholders (who are real physical entities) own the building (another real physical entity) in common under an agreement called a company.

Companies and states are what are known in law as 'legal fictions'. The word fiction is used as an acknowledgement that these things DO NOT EXIST EXCEPT ON PAPER.

My point is that I never signed up, so how can I be part of it?

Whats wrong with an abstract agreement owning a building? It is basically saying that each shareholder owns part of it. If they wish to remove you, they have the right to do so as it is private property. You also signed up by entering their private property... nobody forced you to, it was a conscious choice you made.

 

[XX_PLANKER_xx]

My point is that I never signed up, so how can I be part of it?

Reading along. Please elaborate.

 

I'm confused as to what you're saying. Yes, I assumed P => Q... I still don't see why that's not safe to assume though. You're a person. If I prove that all people exist within a state, then I've proven that you exist within a state.

No it's a tautology. If statement A is logically equivalent to statement B, and you say A, therefore B, it's the same as just saying A or just saying B.

In other words you haven't proven anything.

Watch:

1. If dogs are seven feet tall then they live in space.
2. If dogs don't live in space then they are not seven feet tall.

This neither proves dogs live in space, nor that they are seven feet tall.

In your case you never proved that the first statement was true: If Sythe is a real person, Sythe exists within a state. You just assumed it was true, then drew a logically equivalent statement from it which is of zero value in proving the original statement to be true. You further acknowledged this by then proceeding to argue the merits of the first statement, as you continue to do below:

Whats wrong with an abstract agreement owning a building?

An abstract agreement is not a physical entity. It cannot own anything.

It is basically saying that each shareholder owns part of it. If they wish to remove you, they have the right to do so as it is private property. You also signed up by entering their private property... nobody forced you to, it was a conscious choice you made.

Right but I don't exist within their company. Even if I am on territory that they own or control. And if the people doing business as IBM want me off their property then that is perfectly within their rights. However the state is involuntary and never acquired any land or property legitimately. Not only did I not 'sign up' to it, it claims ownership over my life and rightfully acquired property and the products of my labour, and the entire continent of Australia which it took by force. And it claims these with a gun.

But back to the original point. I am not present within a state because a state is a piece of paper I never signed.

 

[Imagine]

No it's a tautology. If statement A is logically equivalent to statement B, and you say A, therefore B, it's the same as just saying A or just saying B.

In other words you haven't proven anything.

Watch:

1. If dogs are seven feet tall then they live in space.
2. If dogs don't live in space then they are not seven feet tall.

This neither proves dogs live in space, nor that they are seven feet tall.

In your case you never proved that the first statement was true: If Sythe is a real person, Sythe exists within a state. You just assumed it was true, then drew a logically equivalent statement from it which is of zero value in proving the original statement to be true. You further acknowledged this by then proceeding to argue the merits of the first statement, as you continue to do below:

No, no I think you're seeing my 'proof' wrong. I understand what you're saying.

This is the general form of my proof:
I want to show that P => Q. Showing that is equivalent to showing that Not Q => Not P.

So I start with the general assumption of Not Q. (This is valid to assume, this is my premise). Then I make a chain: Not Q => S => R => ... => Not P,
but in no place in the middle do I use P => Q.

An abstract agreement is not a physical entity. It cannot own anything.

The agreement doesn't own anything. What it represents, though, does.

Right but I don't exist within their company. Even if I am on territory that they own or control. And if the people doing business as IBM want me off their property then that is perfectly within their rights. However the state is involuntary and never acquired any land or property legitimately. Not only did I not 'sign up' to it, it claims ownership over my life and rightfully acquired property and the products of my labour, and the entire continent. And it claims these with a gun.

But back to the original point. I am not present within a state because a state is a piece of paper, and how could I be present within a piece of paper? Particularly one I never signed.

Ok. That last part is good argument, but I don't understand why you asked us to prove your existence within a state if you could prove that you did not exist within a state.

Also, small print: What does a signature have to do with anything. Why does having your name on a piece of paper signify anything? Why is signing different from just writing my name? And why couldn't someone else just write my name for me?