BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers

# mmiguel

Members

142

1

4. ## Three Gods

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.
5. ## Evil Genies

I wish to ace my midterm.
6. ## Evil Genies

I wish to always obtain or experience whatever I want, and to never obtain or experience whatever I don't want, where my wants are evaluated at the time the thing is to be obtained or experienced, and as such actions are applicable per the genie code.
7. ## Evil Genies

I wish to be able to travel to any point in space time (accurately), which I select, whenever I want.
8. ## Evil Genies

Your wish is granted. Congratulations. I wish to know an incorruptible wish.
9. ## Captain's Conundrum

Just had a duh! moment. Theory is only second definition, theorem is first. This is why I need sleep. Commencing hibernation in t minus .....

11. ## Three Gods

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".
12. ## Three Gods

Yeah that makes sense... nice observation!
13. ## Three Gods

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.

15. ## Evil Genies

They don't, they only wish for world peace. That's why they would be really confused when the announcer responds as you did
16. ## Three Gods

We cannot be certain.... that's what sucks so much.
17. ## Captain's Conundrum

Agree that this definition makes sameness pretty much useless, but sameness is an idealization. There are many useful concepts that are useless in the ideal case. When you stop caring about characteristics, and ignoring them, that is when sameness becomes a useful concept. This process, the removal of characteristics, we can recognize as abstraction, or in another word, generalization. Pick a word out of the dictionary - horse for example. What does the definition say? Any definition is essentially a list of characteristics. No definition lists every characteristic of any real object, since we wouldn't be able to process that much information. In order to get a more manageable amount of information, we selectively discard information in the form of unimportant characteristics. Almost always, the first thing to go is spatio-temporal position. I don't care where the horse is, and it doesn't matter where it is, I only care that it "is an odd-toed ungulatemammal belonging to the taxonomic family Equidae." (wiki was good enough for me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse). Likewise, I don't care what color it is. I don't care how tall it is, I don't care how heavy it is, etc. Why am I talking about this ---- because I feel that it provides insight into how we process information. We are allowed to use "sameness" by willingly playing ignorant and removing information from what we observe. This is also what allows us to group things together e.g. we can say two horses instead of one fundamentally unique entity and another "dissimilar" fundamentally unique entity. Without this, numbers would not make sense (if we treated everything uniquely, how could we ever count higher than one? - numbers only make sense when applied to things considered the same) It allows us to identify the ship from the OP as the same ship regardless of what it's made of (if we happened to remove such characteristics from our definition of the ship), but it doesn't contradict saying it's a different ship either. With all this great stuff that generalization/abstraction does for us, it still seems like removing information is a form of lying to ourselves though, doesn't it? As if all of the concepts and definitions we have constructed to give meaning to our world are illusions, that we artificially make due to some evolutionary programming --- recognize a predator as an object, run away and hide, recognize food, eat it... But this ignorance (removal of information -unimportant characteristics) also serves great uses, as I mentioned above. Generally it feels like a bad thing to be ignorant, and even worse to want to be ignorant. This paradoxical idea is what has me so interested. I was hoping someone else might come to a similar conclusion from my OP, but maybe not..... oh well
18. ## Three Gods

I admitted from the beginning that I find the theory agreeable... I just separated theory from the interpretation... and said that i don't like the most popular interpretation (3) - looks like we got nothing to disagree about here (4) - information within a subjective perspective can change, that is certain... that is why i like the bayesian interpretation of probability (another contentious debate). but if we attempt to step outside of subjectivity, and ask about what is really out there, real information in the fabric of existence, and not just the little bits and pieces that we have been able to process in our brains,... then whether or not such information is increasing when taking into consideration the entire universe as a system is not so certain. I suggest a truce, parting with mutual respect
19. ## Three Gods

mmiguel's uncertainty principle: There is a fundamental uncertainty in evaluating a characteristic for an object for which that characteristic is not well defined. Evaluate the characteristic: "mood" for each of the following life forms: [person, cat, insect, tree] Is the inability to evaluate the mood of a tree an argument for the existence of randomness? Now replace mood with "position", and replace the list of lifeforms with increasingly non-localized waveforms. ... and replace mmiguel with heisenberg.... Edit: just typed this due to thinking thoughts... didn't see you had responded above.
20. ## Evil Genies

This should be the response at all beauty pageants.
21. ## Captain's Conundrum

They do need to occupy the same quantum state to be identical. This does not mean that bosons are identical. True sameness means that every characteristic is the same, quantum state is but one characteristic. There are characteristics that differ between two bosons that make them two bosons and not one boson. A photon leaving my computer screen has at least one characteristic that differs from a photon leaving your computer screen. Those are two bosons that are different. Wikipedia may say that there are no differences: http://en.wikipedia....tical_particles but what they are really saying, (implicitly, and perhaps without realizing it), is that none of characteristics that they care about are different. They are not actually implying that no characteristics are different. This implicit catch is behind every thought of sameness that anyone ever thinks. A neat thing to notice, is that this requires a specification of what characteristics are important enough to consider, and what to ignore. Importance itself, requires a subjective perspective. Hence Sameness doesn't exist, in the truest sense (in the objective reality, outside of our subjective noggins). But wait..... Explain why the concept is so prevalent then

23. ## Captain's Conundrum

I knew what you were talking about. From the article, it is easy to see how two fermions might be different -> they must have different quantum state according to exclusion principle. So.... they aren't the same... and no two fermions can ever truly be the same - proof thanks to Wolfgang P. I would have had to work a little harder if you tried bosons.
24. ## Evil Genies

I wish for world peace. Who among you is willing to be a jerk?
25. ## Captain's Conundrum

If they are completely the same, how are we even able to recognize them as being 2 objects instead of 1?
×

• #### Activity

• Riddles
×
• Create New...