Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

Three Gods


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 phaze

phaze

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1002 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:19 AM

P.S.

In no-one's solution do we ever learn if Ja=Yes or if Da =Yes

:(


This is not possible given that we are only given one question to each God (three questions in total) possible replies are

Da Da Da
Da Da Ya
Da Ya Da
Da Ya Ya
Ya Da Da
Ya Da Ya
Ya Ya Da
Ya Ya Ya

8 possible state in order establish the position of the Gods and what Da and Ya mean we need 12 States

Da T R L
Ya T R L
Da T L R
Ya T L R
Da R T L
Ya R T L
Da R L T
Ya R L T
Da L T R
Ya L T R
Da L R T
Ya L R T

So we can only know either the position of the Gods or what they mean when they say Da or Ya but not both
#$@$@! I was hoping in changing the topic
  • 0
Perfecting Mafia suicide since August 2008

#62 Yoruichi-san

Yoruichi-san

    "That Woman"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3394 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Outside the box

Posted 22 September 2012 - 12:32 AM

Lol...why? The puzzle is solved, the state of existence is not ;P.

(If you want something to do you could always try your hand at the latest Chromatic Witch segment, links on my 'About Me' page ;))
  • 0
Women are definitely stronger. We are [Fe]males, after all...

Some of what makes me me is real, some of what makes me me is imaginary...I guess I'm just complex. ;P

<3 BBC's Sherlock, the series and the man. "Smart is the new sexy."

Chromatic Witch links now on my 'About Me' page! Episode 3 is finally here!

When life hands me lemons, I make invisible ink.

#63 mmiguel

mmiguel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 September 2012 - 04:44 AM

Ah...I think I see now. You're one of the many people who fear uncertainty (the general concept, not the scientific principle). You believe in determinism because you want to, even though none of it, not even the one-to-one and onto nature of cause and effect, can be proven.

(The below is not directed at you, you are personally much more articulate than this, but general arguments with determinists who fear uncertainty and are not so articulate go like this)

"There is an exact one-to-one correlated cause for everything." "Okay, what about spontaneous photonic emission. Why does a particular event happen at that exact time and produce a photon of that exact trajectory?" "Because of reasons we cannot understand yet." "Why does there have to be a reason?" "Because everything has an exact one-to-one correlated cause."

*Sigh*

Personally, I like a little adventure, a little not-knowing what's to come. What it amounts to in the end, I suppose, is a matter of personality and belief system. *shrugs*


Not really, it's more like I feel that there is insufficient evidence to make a confident conclusion one way or the other. I know people say things like, "well it was published in a respected magazine, and all the leading scientists believe it", but I prefer to evaluate how logical something is for myself before blindly believing what someone else says. In most cases, I find articles published in respected magazines very logical, and find that they make sense. If something doesn't make sense to me, I don't necessarily assume it's because it's wrong, and I usually try to dig a little deeper, or simply just reserve judgment. I have not found anything to convince me that randomness exists, mostly just restatements that the popular position is X, without much reasoning. Either that or insufficient reasoning that is cleverly worded to make it seem it accounts for every possible case, when it is in fact limited to certain cases.

Given that there is insufficient evidence, I can really just choose which one seems to be more in line what my other observations about the world. If I turn out to be wrong, then oh well.
Everything else I've observed so far, is readily explained by the philosophy which I've chosen, as far as I can judge. And every time someone says: hey! - this thing isn't explained, I feel that I can come up with a way of showing that what they are pointing out is in fact consistent with my belief.
By believing the opposite side, you are doing the same thing, you just have the benefit of having the more popular belief.

I think we've beat this topic to death.

Edited by mmiguel, 22 September 2012 - 04:46 AM.

  • 0

#64 mmiguel

mmiguel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 September 2012 - 04:45 AM

This is not possible given that we are only given one question to each God (three questions in total) possible replies are

Da Da Da
Da Da Ya
Da Ya Da
Da Ya Ya
Ya Da Da
Ya Da Ya
Ya Ya Da
Ya Ya Ya

8 possible state in order establish the position of the Gods and what Da and Ya mean we need 12 States

Da T R L
Ya T R L
Da T L R
Ya T L R
Da R T L
Ya R T L
Da R L T
Ya R L T
Da L T R
Ya L T R
Da L R T
Ya L R T

So we can only know either the position of the Gods or what they mean when they say Da or Ya but not both
#$@$@! I was hoping in changing the topic


Yeah that makes sense... nice observation!
  • 0

#65 Yoruichi-san

Yoruichi-san

    "That Woman"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3394 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Outside the box

Posted 22 September 2012 - 05:57 AM

Lol...you're the one who keeps beating it with massive posts bringing up new points :P.

Speaking of blindly following...that's exactly what determinism is. We are taught as a kid that cause and effect operate one way, and we blindly accept. There is no, and has never been, any evidence that causation is necessarily one-to-one and onto. In fact, in experimental results, there is always a degree of error, which people try to explain with various things, but could this error not be caused by the inherent randomness of the universe? Phenomena such as Brownian motion and spontaneous photonic emission also pose questions that determinism cannot answer other than to use the circular argument that there has to be an underlying cause we don't understand yet because everything has a cause.

In the end whether you want to believe in determinism is a choice, one that you make based on your personality and beliefs. Many good people (including Einstein) choose to subscribe to it, but to think that "it sucks" not to be able to prove causation bespeaks an underlying fear of uncertainty, which is a very human trait. Everyone likes to be in control.
  • 0
Women are definitely stronger. We are [Fe]males, after all...

Some of what makes me me is real, some of what makes me me is imaginary...I guess I'm just complex. ;P

<3 BBC's Sherlock, the series and the man. "Smart is the new sexy."

Chromatic Witch links now on my 'About Me' page! Episode 3 is finally here!

When life hands me lemons, I make invisible ink.

#66 mmiguel

mmiguel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:39 AM

Lol...you're the one who keeps beating it with massive posts bringing up new points :P.

Speaking of blindly following...that's exactly what determinism is. We are taught as a kid that cause and effect operate one way, and we blindly accept. There is no, and has never been, any evidence that causation is necessarily one-to-one and onto. In fact, in experimental results, there is always a degree of error, which people try to explain with various things, but could this error not be caused by the inherent randomness of the universe? Phenomena such as Brownian motion and spontaneous photonic emission also pose questions that determinism cannot answer other than to use the circular argument that there has to be an underlying cause we don't understand yet because everything has a cause.

In the end whether you want to believe in determinism is a choice, one that you make based on your personality and beliefs. Many good people (including Einstein) choose to subscribe to it, but to think that "it sucks" not to be able to prove causation bespeaks an underlying fear of uncertainty, which is a very human trait. Everyone likes to be in control.


Ok no more beating then. No evidence for determinisim because errors always can be explained by randomness - agree, but on flip side, all errors can also be explained by complexity (and/or trying to evaluate something that is not well-defined).

I wasn't saying it sucks that I couldn't prove I was right --- I was saying it sucks that we can't come up with a better answer other than, "we can pick whichever one we like better".
  • 0

#67 Yoruichi-san

Yoruichi-san

    "That Woman"

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3394 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Outside the box

Posted 23 September 2012 - 03:36 AM

Alright, I'll let the horse rest since you will, but just in case anyone else is actually reading this and is curious (or if you're curious), it's worthwhile to take a look into the evolutionary and neuroscience perspectives of why humans develop/use the concept of cause and effect ;).
  • 0
Women are definitely stronger. We are [Fe]males, after all...

Some of what makes me me is real, some of what makes me me is imaginary...I guess I'm just complex. ;P

<3 BBC's Sherlock, the series and the man. "Smart is the new sexy."

Chromatic Witch links now on my 'About Me' page! Episode 3 is finally here!

When life hands me lemons, I make invisible ink.

#68 joef1000

joef1000

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts

Posted 01 October 2012 - 05:18 PM

Spoiler for Official Answer


How would you word a question in the form D iif ¬L iif Y? Can you give me an example of a question in that form?
  • 0

#69 mmiguel

mmiguel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 02 October 2012 - 06:27 AM

How would you word a question in the form D iif ¬L iif Y? Can you give me an example of a question in that form?





Y = any true/false statement you want e.g. the sky is blue, e.g. I am taller than four inches, e.g. next lotto numbers are X, ...etc etc

Way 1:
Does Da mean yes if and only if you are the True god if and only if the statement Y is true?

Since the three gods know what iff means, they will have no trouble understanding what you are asking.

For those less comfortable with iff, we can restate as follows.

Way 2:
Let C = A iff B
A and B are statements (meaning either of them can be true or false).
C is also a statement (can be true or false).
C states that the truth of A is equivalent to the truth of B.
C states that either:
1. A and B are both True
or
2. A and B are both False

If A and B are both True, or A and B are both False, then C is True.
If one of them is True, and the other False, then C is False.

Now to understand that original expression: D iff ¬L iff Y

Use the associative property of iff: ((D iif ¬L) iif Y)
i.e.
Let Q = D iif ¬L
Evaluate Q first, then evaluate Q iff Y

Since iff is associative, we could have combined (¬L iff Y) first then evaluated the result against D iff .... and we would get the same answer.

Using the truth equivalence concept, the statement in English can be written as:
Is the truth of the statement ( the truth of the statement (Da means yes) is equivalent the truth of the statement (you are Truth) )
equivalent to the truth of the statement Y?

Suppose Y is true. If the God were truthful and Da meant yes, then the God would reply Da.
If the God is not truthful, and Da means yes, then the god still answers Da thanks to the (you are Truth) part of the question.
This is because the god attempts to lie (i.e. flips from Da to Ja), and the (you are Truth) part flips his answer around once again (from Ja back to Da).
If Da actually means no, then the god still answers Da thanks to the (Da means yes) part of the question. The God would attempt to answer Ja, but the (Da means yes) part flips it back to Da.

If Da means no and the god is a liar, then it will still answer Da, following same reasoning as above.
Thus regardless of what Da/Ja means, and regardless of whether the god is Truthful or lying, the question always equates the Truth of Y to Da and if Y is false, to Ja.

Edited by mmiguel, 02 October 2012 - 06:35 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users