Gyroscopic Investing

I'm not an expert on the logic here so I would appreciate some brains. Can anyone think of a false statement that does not have as true it's exact opposite?

Please exclude the liars paradox here.

I just want to make sure my logic or whatever isn't off.

The ocean is dry - FALSE
The ocean is not dry - True

I like salmon -False (even though only I can prove it)
I do not like salmon - True

So on and so forth. Can anyone say with certainting from an education in this stuff that the opposite of a false statement is automatically true? I'm quite certain that's the case but I'd rather have some smart fellows confirm it.

Being that we can't predict the future, it makes it kind of hard to say doing the "right thing" is what we should do or that even doing the right thing leads to a favorable outcome. I'm reminded of this parable.

There is a Chinese story of a farmer who used an old horse to till his fields. One day, the horse escaped into the hills and when the farmer's neighbors sympathized with the old man over his bad luck, the farmer replied, "Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?" A week later, the horse returned with a herd of horses from the hills and this time the neighbors congratulated the farmer on his good luck. His reply was, "Good luck? Bad luck? Who knows?"

Then, when the farmer's son was attempting to tame one of the wild horses, he fell off its back and broke his leg. Everyone thought this very bad luck. Not the farmer, whose only reaction was, "Bad luck? Good luck? Who knows?"

Some weeks later, the army marched into the village and conscripted every able-bodied youth they found there. When they saw the farmer's son with his broken leg, they let him off. Now was that good luck or bad luck?

Who knows?

Everything that seems on the surface to be an evil may be a good in disguise. And everything that seems good on the surface may really be an evil.

Doodle,

Because we can't predict the future is enough reason for me to know that results can never be the yardstick for what is right and wrong. Many people believe it is though. Many others believe just the intention is enough to determine right and wrong. Again I disagree because that would be based on on the individual actors values alone.

Of course the entire point of this thread is to work out whether or not right or wrong can be objectively proven before acting and that we have an imperative, a "moral duty" or whatever to do what is right.

I am ok being the only one who believes this for now. Everyone else pretty much beleives in right or wrong, but that it is a gut feeling coincidence we all have or comes from a supernatural being.

I don't beleive in supernatural beings or coincidneces on such a mass scale so it led me to a lot of thoughts on the subject and working out what we have just scratched the surface of here.

The idea that an action can even be correct or incorrect is a function of logic, no different than saying that "A giraffe is an animal" can be proven with logic.  However, if an action we "ought not" to take is actually an option, than it is "in accordance with reality," otherwise it's not even an option.  Unless you include "desire" as a truth that must be adhered to.

Even the decision to try to breathe underwater is correct in the sense that it may be true that someone tried to breathe underwater.  Bob tried to breathe under-water is "correct."  It was in accordance with fact.  It is POSSIBLE in reality to try to breathe underwater... just not desirable for most people.  So, once again, you're effectively stating (it seems) that it is "not in accordance with reality" to do something against your desires.

Kshartle wrote: I'm not an expert on the logic here so I would appreciate some brains. Can anyone think of a false statement that does not have as true it's exact opposite?

Please exclude the liars paradox here.

I just want to make sure my logic or whatever isn't off.

The ocean is dry - FALSE
The ocean is not dry - True

I like salmon -False (even though only I can prove it)
I do not like salmon - True

So on and so forth. Can anyone say with certainting from an education in this stuff that the opposite of a false statement is automatically true? I'm quite certain that's the case but I'd rather have some smart fellows confirm it.

What you've illustrated isn't "opposites," it's negation.  Now our language as humans screws this up a bit.... when we say "I do not like salmon," most people don't deem it to be a "neutral" statement but one of actual DISlike.  But that's just because we talk that way.

So "My computer is not extremely light" is just negating that statement.... not stating the opposite (that your computer is extremely heavy... duh).

So in ethics, proving that we don't have an imperative to act doesn't mean we have an imperative NOT to act.... negation of anything IS NOT opposite, necessarily.  So this actually brings up something that got deleted in my post yesterday!  So many of the things that we do that "are in accordance with fact/truth" are not things we "ought" to do (we don't necessarily have an imperative to do so).

Unless you disagree with that last part... to which I'd ask you to clarify how you view "oughts" in terms of negation vs opposites.

moda0306 wrote: The idea that an action can even be correct or incorrect is a function of logic, no different than saying that "A giraffe is an animal" can be proven with logic.  However, if an action we "ought not" to take is actually an option, than it is "in accordance with reality," otherwise it's not even an option.  Unless you include "desire" as a truth that must be adhered to.

Even the decision to try to breathe underwater is correct in the sense that it may be true that someone tried to breathe underwater.  Bob tried to breathe under-water is "correct."  It was in accordance with fact.  It is POSSIBLE in reality to try to breathe underwater... just not desirable for most people.  So, once again, you're effectively stating (it seems) that it is "not in accordance with reality" to do something against your desires.

This is jumping ahead to try and figure out what is right before we establish the imperative to do what is right.

If there is no imperative to do what's right then what does it matter anyway?

Let's get agreement on that first and worry about the implications later.

Also, if we do establish that we have an imperative to do what's right but can't figure out what that is then it's also moot.

So not to worry. Agreeing that "we ought to do what is right" is not even close to proving morality exists and is provable yet.

To that end....can you think of a flase statement that the opposite of which is also false? Do you know if it's always the case the the opposite of false is true?

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I'm not an expert on the logic here so I would appreciate some brains. Can anyone think of a false statement that does not have as true it's exact opposite?

Please exclude the liars paradox here.

I just want to make sure my logic or whatever isn't off.

The ocean is dry - FALSE
The ocean is not dry - True

I like salmon -False (even though only I can prove it)
I do not like salmon - True

So on and so forth. Can anyone say with certainting from an education in this stuff that the opposite of a false statement is automatically true? I'm quite certain that's the case but I'd rather have some smart fellows confirm it.

What you've illustrated isn't "opposites," it's negation.  Now our language as humans screws this up a bit.... when we say "I do not like salmon," most people don't deem it to be a "neutral" statement but one of actual DISlike.  But that's just because we talk that way.

So "My computer is not extremely light" is just negating that statement.... not stating the opposite (that your computer is extremely heavy... duh).

So in ethics, proving that we don't have an imperative to act doesn't mean we have an imperative NOT to act.... negation of anything IS NOT opposite, necessarily.  So this actually brings up something that got deleted in my post yesterday!  So many of the things that we do that "are in accordance with fact/truth" are not things we "ought" to do (we have an imperative to do so).

Unless you disagree with that last part... to which I'd ask you to clarify how you view "oughts" in terms of negation vs opposites.

ok negation might be a better term.

Is the negation of a false statement always true?

From wikipedia:

If a statement is true, then its contrapositive is true (and vice versa).
If a statement is false, then its contrapositive is false (and vice versa).
If a statement's inverse is true, then its converse is true (and vice versa).
If a statement's inverse is false, then its converse is false (and vice versa).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraposition

I looked at a few other places that all confirmed this.

I knew intuitively and maybe picked it up somewhere at some time but didn't know with 100% certainty that is was the case and well established.


That being said.....please chew on "We ought to do what is wrong" for a little bit Moda and anyone else and see what you come up with. I'm certain I have the answer but I'll leave that out there for thought if anyone wants to share first how this is without question a false statment of fact.

I'm so confused....

Is nature "moral" in the sense of good and bad (it doesn't seem so)

Are humans part of nature? Is logic part of nature?

If yes, then how can they have morality.

If the universe is amoral, then how can there be "universal" morality?

doodle wrote: I'm so confused....

Is nature "moral" in the sense of good and bad (it doesn't seem so)

Are humans part of nature? Is logic part of nature?

If yes, then how can they have morality.

If the universe is amoral, then how can there be "universal" morality?

From the wiki:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

So.....what are trying to do here is figure out what is good and bad (right and wrong) and establish that we have an imperative to do what is good (right) and not do what is bad (wrong).

You are more than welcome to help but I urge you to fight the urge to jump to the conclusion. Everyone wants to do that and I understand why but it does no good.

Have you read the thread up until now? It's a lot and there is a lot to come. Much of it is very repetative.

It would cut down on the repetitiveness if you would post your proof.  That way everybody would have the whole picture.  People could try to poke holes in it, you could respond with patches, etc.  I don't see the advantage of paying it out an inch at a time this way, unless of course you don't actually have a proof.

I'm just trying to understand where morality comes from if the universe (which operates according to logical rules it seems) doesn't appear to have any sense of morality. We are part of an amoral yet logical universe....at least it seems so to me

Kshartle wrote:

doodle wrote: I'm so confused....

Is nature "moral" in the sense of good and bad (it doesn't seem so)

Are humans part of nature? Is logic part of nature?

If yes, then how can they have morality.

If the universe is amoral, then how can there be "universal" morality?

From the wiki:

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

So.....what are trying to do here is figure out what is good and bad (right and wrong) and establish that we have an imperative to do what is good (right) and not do what is bad (wrong).

You are more than welcome to help but I urge you to fight the urge to jump to the conclusion. Everyone wants to do that and I understand why but it does no good.

Have you read the thread up until now? It's a lot and there is a lot to come. Much of it is very repetative.

Unless and until we determine that morality is fundamental to nature, right/wrong in a moral sense will NOT be the same as right/wrong in a factual sense.  And even then, we have to be careful, because think about how you use those two meanings that in the same sentence...

It is right that Hitler killed millions of Jews.

... perhaps these words have permanently different meanings that should NOT be interchanged.  Because something being FACTUALLY correct, and something that OUGHT to be done (whether a MORAL ought or an AMORAL ought), are VERY different.  However, both are "in accordance with reality," according to K's definitions of an "ought."

doodle wrote: I'm just trying to understand where morality comes from if the universe (which operates according to logical rules it seems) doesn't appear to have any sense of morality. We are part of an amoral yet logical universe....at least it seems so to me

Then you are with people who are also trying to do the same thing. Perhaps we can figure it out using our brains.

It can't be too complex that we can't understand it. Many people prefer to believe it's impossible to understand. I don't think anything is beyond our understanding. 

doodle wrote: I'm just trying to understand where morality comes from if the universe (which operates according to logical rules it seems) doesn't appear to have any sense of morality. We are part of an amoral yet logical universe....at least it seems so to me

Your statement is an excellent one for a physical universe.  Morality is not a physical substance (at least I don't think so).  Therein lies the answer on where it comes from.  Ditto for love, hate, evil, compassion, etc.
... Mountaineer

Kshartle wrote:I don't think anything is beyond our understanding.

That's quite a statement of faith!  I'm curious as to where this idea would come from.  Would you really expect to be able to understand everything that is true?

moda0306 wrote: Unless and until we determine that morality is fundamental to nature, right/wrong in a moral sense will NOT be the same as right/wrong in a factual sense. 

It will not be a problem to demonstrate this and to demonstrate that the German Government's massacre or any government's massacres are morally wrong. Same for their theft and threats.

Xan wrote: It would cut down on the repetitiveness if you would post your proof.  That way everybody would have the whole picture.  People could try to poke holes in it, you could respond with patches, etc.  I don't see the advantage of paying it out an inch at a time this way, unless of course you don't actually have a proof.

Part of it has been useful, but after thinking about all this, it would have been easier to focus our debate on the most debatable premises, rather than worrying about whether we exist, reality exists, whether an "ought" contains an implicit

But at the same time, he's got the more difficult job... I'll take this discussion any way I can get it.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Unless and until we determine that morality is fundamental to nature, right/wrong in a moral sense will NOT be the same as right/wrong in a factual sense. 

It will not be a problem to demonstrate this and to demonstrate that the German Government's massacre or any government's massacres are morally wrong. Same for their theft and threats.

Yes, but these are distinct types of "right" vs "wrong."  The holocaust CAN happen.  It DID happen.  To say it is "not in accordance with nature" because we "ought not" to do it implies something outside the realm of "what's possible" into "what SHOULD be done..... what we have an imperative to do and to not do."

Do you need this premise to build another premise on top of?

Perhaps we should move on, and come back to this if need be.

If that's too hasty, as an exercise to help us understand, could you please build us an "ought" argument?  Basically, an argument that concludes that we "ought" to take an action.

FYI,

Just because it sounds contradictory to say "we 'ought' to do what is incorrect (or wrong)," doesn't mean the OPPOSITE is true.  It just means that we've negated the idea that "we ought to do what is wrong."


But of course, the reason it sounds goofy, is the word "ought" is defined by a desired action, and the word wrong, as you use it in that sentence, implies that an action can be something that we "ought not" to do.

So it would be like saying "Doing what is desired is undesirable."

Of course that's goofy.

But that doesn't mean that individual desire can be used in logic without a value-statement about that desire... and that value statement is yet another "ought" statement.

moda0306 wrote:

Xan wrote: It would cut down on the repetitiveness if you would post your proof.  That way everybody would have the whole picture.  People could try to poke holes in it, you could respond with patches, etc.  I don't see the advantage of paying it out an inch at a time this way, unless of course you don't actually have a proof.

Part of it has been useful, but after thinking about all this, it would have been easier to focus our debate on the most debatable premises, rather than worrying about whether we exist, reality exists, whether an "ought" contains an implicit

But at the same time, he's got the more difficult job... I'll take this discussion any way I can get it.

The problem is moda, I can get all the way to the end and somebody will say...."well you never proved we exist" or "there's no such thing as reality" or "there's no proof we should do anything, right or wrong". Plenty of this is just me considering the nature of the audience...hence the God stuff and trying to explain the difference between an opinion statement and factual statement (that one is confused more than anything in this forum. 

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Xan wrote: It would cut down on the repetitiveness if you would post your proof.  That way everybody would have the whole picture.  People could try to poke holes in it, you could respond with patches, etc.  I don't see the advantage of paying it out an inch at a time this way, unless of course you don't actually have a proof.

Part of it has been useful, but after thinking about all this, it would have been easier to focus our debate on the most debatable premises, rather than worrying about whether we exist, reality exists, whether an "ought" contains an implicit

But at the same time, he's got the more difficult job... I'll take this discussion any way I can get it.

The problem is moda, I can get all the way to the end and somebody will say...."well you never proved we exist" or "there's no such thing as reality" or "there's no proof we should do anything, right or wrong". Plenty of this is just me considering the nature of the audience...hence the God stuff and trying to explain the difference between an opinion statement and factual statement (that one is confused more than anything in this forum.

I understand, but if you have all the premises, who cares.... somebody says "but we don't exist!"

And most of us say, "We're willing to accept that as a premise, bub... let's have that debate later, if at all."


The thing is, if you're argument depends very, very solidly on this interpretation of what "ought" truly means, then we might have a problem.

If you've got another premise (or few premises) that we can disprove or call into question more easily, we can just focus on those first, and we may never have had to had this exhausting debate about "oughts."

But now that we've done this dance for a while, I've gone back and looked at your premise:

Ought is a word used to describe the concept that if an action is correct that's what we should do. That's what correct means with regards to an action. A correct action is what we ought to do (this is just another definition of a correct action) and we ought to do what is correct.

I agree with this.  Ought describes the concept that if an action is correct, then that's what we SHOULD do.

If you can prove an action to be correct, then one "ought" to do it.  I can agree with that.  I'll leave the rest of this debate for later when you try to prove an action as being correct.

Sorry it took us this long... I got caught up in debating a bunch of the other things you were saying, rather than the ACTUAL premise.

Fair?  Xan?  Mountaineer?

"Ought is a word used to describe the concept that if an action is correct that's what we should do. That's what correct means with regards to an action. A correct action is what we ought to do (this is just another definition of a correct action) and we ought to do what is correct."

I really, really hesitate to say much of anything at this point as I don't want to sidetrack you logical gurus, but I do have a question and a comment.  No need to respond if that will aid the progression.
1. Is an "action" physical and mental for purposes of this discussion?  Is a thought an action?
2. The statement above seems to be a bit circular.  I'm reading this as we ought to do what it is correct and, it is correct to do what we ought to do.  Fuzzy and ambiguous to me aside from not being true in all circumstances; I am one for simple, easy to understand, non-convoluted sentences and the top statement is not one to me.

... Mountaineer

Desert wrote:

doodle wrote: I'm just trying to understand where morality comes from if the universe (which operates according to logical rules it seems) doesn't appear to have any sense of morality. We are part of an amoral yet logical universe....at least it seems so to me

I nominate this post of the thread...

I'm sure in another 20 premises we will just have about proven self-ownership.

The thing that sucks about all this is, even if Kshartle proves self-ownership, we still have a TON of areas that self-ownership needs to wiggle its way through logically that ask some very uncomfortable questions.  Heck, merely admitting the CHANCE that animals have some rights/value could COMPLETELY up-end our entire economy if we were to all of a sudden to start complying with the NAP.

But I won't make K answer all this business until he proves self-ownership.  I'm anxious to see what he comes up with.

Mountaineer wrote: "Ought is a word used to describe the concept that if an action is correct that's what we should do. That's what correct means with regards to an action. A correct action is what we ought to do (this is just another definition of a correct action) and we ought to do what is correct."

I really, really hesitate to say much of anything at this point as I don't want to sidetrack you logical gurus, but I do have a question and a comment.  No need to respond if that will aid the progression.
1. Is an "action" physical and mental for purposes of this discussion?  Is a thought an action?
2. The statement above seems to be a bit circular.  I'm reading this as we ought to do what it is correct and, it is correct to do what we ought to do.  Fuzzy and ambiguous to me aside from not being true in all circumstances; I am one for simple, easy to understand, non-convoluted sentences and the top statement is not one to me.

... Mountaineer

It is a little sloppy.  I'd prefer something like this:

"Ought is a word used to describe the concept that IF an action can be proven to be correct, that is the action we have an imperative to take."

It still leaves him left to prove that an action can be "correct" or "incorrect."  Until then, we don't have an ought.  My inclination is to wait until we have something with more teeth than this to action argue against it.  This doesn't really have much teeth.  You still have to apply some proof to an action.