Off the top of my head, the rise of organized crime through violence during Prohibition. The Barbarian invasions of the Northern Roman empire, furthering European decline into the dark ages. I'm sure there are more.
You are correct in stating that I assume that the father will be dead at time t = 0 if he is dead at time t = -10. This assumption is built in to the statement of the grandfather paradox. Explicitly, the assumption is that if one changes the past, one changes the present. As my exposition demonstrates, if changing the past changes the present, and the present is fixed, then there will be two distinct copies (abstract or otherwise) of the present. This either results in contradiction or implies the existence of parallel or probabilistic universes depending on the physical theory one uses as a framework for the problem. The fact that I used "death" is inconsequential.
You are correct in stating that I assume, for the sake of argument, that under our normal understanding of death and fatherhood, a person cannot be alive and dead at the same time. This is why I explicitly mentioned that this hypothesis can fail in the case of parallel universes and the like. There are still issues regarding trans-universe identity that make it dubious to claim that your father is alive (in a parallel universe) when he's dead in this one. Is that really your father? It seems that he is numerically distinct from the man you killed.
Using formal logic doesn't help, though, because logic is an abstraction from language and observation, not universal law.
You're right. Logic is an abstraction from language and observation. The point that it is an abstraction from observation is very important here, for it implies that the law of non-contradiction has empirical evidence. It in fact has a lot of empirical evidence. This puts it on at least a strong a basis as other scientific theories with confirming evidence. It is on that basis that a scientist can appeal to the law of non-contradiction, just as a scientist can appeal to special relativity if so required.
I'm not sure what to make of your second paragraph. It seems to be missing some verbs, brings up issues I didn't mention as if I had, and procedes to undermine them rather sloppily. But I'll offer a suggestion: science only concerns itself with the aspects of reality that are observable. And of what one cannot speak, one should remain silent.
Lets say that at t = 0 your father is alive. And you go back to t = -10 to kill him. Let's say, further, that you kill him. So at t = -10 your father is dead. Then at t = 0 your dad is dead. This is a contradiction by hypothesis. The logic here is valid, so some premise must fail.
So it is logically impossible to kill your own father, given a relatively naive understanding of causation and fatherhood. A more nuanced understanding of causation and space-time might include things like "branching universes" and the like. Which is perfectly fine. But then there's the philoshical issue whether the person killed is actually your father or "merely" your "parallel universe father."
I was looking forward to trying the site you mentioned, but unfortunately I was redirected several times and ended up at OpenCMS's site. This is a bit frustrating, as I've been trying to choose a CMS for my own site, but have no idea what criteria I should be using to evaluate them.
Do you have any historical reference to back this up, or are you just using common sense? Because if you're just using common sense, you should realize that a 12% dilution of alcohol in water isn't going to be strong enough to kill any pathogens quickly enough. People in the Ancient World would not carry pre-mixed wine. They would mix it immediately before consumption.
I really don't understand this "bad water" theory either. At the earliest, wine production began with human agriculture, but humans had lived nomadically for thousands of years before then. Are you to claim that prehistoric humans had constant diarrhea?
In those days, wine was far stronger. Undiluted wine was (and still is) up to 25% alcohol. The Romans were known to mix two parts water and one part wine for their wine. By the time of Jesus, the custom of diluting wine with water had spread into the Hebrew tribes. This this means that water was safe enough to drink.
And in the even older days, wine was drunk undiluted. Mixed wine was considered unclean. (See Isaiah 1:22) In the earliest (recorded days) wine was drunk every day, with every meal. The Bible records people getting buzzed/wasted. And does so without reproach.
That wikipedia article is incomplete. When a statement forcefully raises a question, it is quite correct to say that the statement begs the question. Note that a question-begging argument -- in the rhetorical or logical sense -- forcefully raises the question why a particular assumption was made. The rhetorical sense of the phrase is an instance of a more general phenomenon.
That's Davin Rusin's website. He just moved it to a new domain. It was on his edu website before. He's a nice guy. He's a regular poster on sci.math and (through cross-posting) sci.logic.
Clearly, the BSA has presented a strong argument. But the Economist's is also strong. Therefore, we would do well to download and read the BSA's 900 kB report on piracy. Each and every one of us can do our part to help eliminate piracy.;-)
Since he claims that his contraption cools his room, some step in your analysis must fail. Can you please show me evidence that he kept the refridgerator in his room? Because it looks to me like he was living in a house. And most houses keep their refridgerators in the kitchen.
Slashdot Mirror
Off the top of my head, the rise of organized crime through violence during Prohibition. The Barbarian invasions of the Northern Roman empire, furthering European decline into the dark ages. I'm sure there are more.
You are correct in stating that I assume that the father will be dead at time t = 0 if he is dead at time t = -10. This assumption is built in to the statement of the grandfather paradox. Explicitly, the assumption is that if one changes the past, one changes the present. As my exposition demonstrates, if changing the past changes the present, and the present is fixed, then there will be two distinct copies (abstract or otherwise) of the present. This either results in contradiction or implies the existence of parallel or probabilistic universes depending on the physical theory one uses as a framework for the problem. The fact that I used "death" is inconsequential.
You are correct in stating that I assume, for the sake of argument, that under our normal understanding of death and fatherhood, a person cannot be alive and dead at the same time. This is why I explicitly mentioned that this hypothesis can fail in the case of parallel universes and the like. There are still issues regarding trans-universe identity that make it dubious to claim that your father is alive (in a parallel universe) when he's dead in this one. Is that really your father? It seems that he is numerically distinct from the man you killed.
Is this a dumb slashtroll or a clever Burroughs reference?
You're right. Logic is an abstraction from language and observation. The point that it is an abstraction from observation is very important here, for it implies that the law of non-contradiction has empirical evidence. It in fact has a lot of empirical evidence. This puts it on at least a strong a basis as other scientific theories with confirming evidence. It is on that basis that a scientist can appeal to the law of non-contradiction, just as a scientist can appeal to special relativity if so required.
I'm not sure what to make of your second paragraph. It seems to be missing some verbs, brings up issues I didn't mention as if I had, and procedes to undermine them rather sloppily. But I'll offer a suggestion: science only concerns itself with the aspects of reality that are observable. And of what one cannot speak, one should remain silent.
Wilt Chamberlain you are not.
Nope. I can prove it to you.
Lets say that at t = 0 your father is alive. And you go back to t = -10 to kill him. Let's say, further, that you kill him. So at t = -10 your father is dead. Then at t = 0 your dad is dead. This is a contradiction by hypothesis. The logic here is valid, so some premise must fail.
So it is logically impossible to kill your own father, given a relatively naive understanding of causation and fatherhood. A more nuanced understanding of causation and space-time might include things like "branching universes" and the like. Which is perfectly fine. But then there's the philoshical issue whether the person killed is actually your father or "merely" your "parallel universe father."
I was looking forward to trying the site you mentioned, but unfortunately I was redirected several times and ended up at OpenCMS's site. This is a bit frustrating, as I've been trying to choose a CMS for my own site, but have no idea what criteria I should be using to evaluate them.
Does anyone have suggestions?
Do you have any historical reference to back this up, or are you just using common sense? Because if you're just using common sense, you should realize that a 12% dilution of alcohol in water isn't going to be strong enough to kill any pathogens quickly enough. People in the Ancient World would not carry pre-mixed wine. They would mix it immediately before consumption.
I really don't understand this "bad water" theory either. At the earliest, wine production began with human agriculture, but humans had lived nomadically for thousands of years before then. Are you to claim that prehistoric humans had constant diarrhea?
Good post. Very informative. Would read again.
I call bullshit.
S /for references.
In those days, wine was far stronger. Undiluted wine was (and still is) up to 25% alcohol. The Romans were known to mix two parts water and one part wine for their wine. By the time of Jesus, the custom of diluting wine with water had spread into the Hebrew tribes. This this means that water was safe enough to drink.
And in the even older days, wine was drunk undiluted. Mixed wine was considered unclean. (See Isaiah 1:22) In the earliest (recorded days) wine was drunk every day, with every meal. The Bible records people getting buzzed/wasted. And does so without reproach.
See http://bible-history.com/isbe/W/WINE%3B+WINE+PRES
No, it's just proof that they've jumped the shark. They used to be silly and fun. Now they're just self-important book shills.
BBEdit sounds like what you're looking for.
But information wants to be free.
That wikipedia article is incomplete. When a statement forcefully raises a question, it is quite correct to say that the statement begs the question. Note that a question-begging argument -- in the rhetorical or logical sense -- forcefully raises the question why a particular assumption was made. The rhetorical sense of the phrase is an instance of a more general phenomenon.
Too bad American Dad sucks. :-(
As far as Bob Kane's vision of Batman, I'd have to say "Batman: Dead End" is the closest thing I've seen. Do a google search. It's a pretty fun short.
Heh, I was hoping to incite a slashdot effecting of the BSA's website. Twas no troll, my friend. :-)
Mod this guy up. That post was really inciteful.
Errm, Dave Rusin.
That's Davin Rusin's website. He just moved it to a new domain. It was on his edu website before. He's a nice guy. He's a regular poster on sci.math and (through cross-posting) sci.logic.
Clearly, the BSA has presented a strong argument. But the Economist's is also strong. Therefore, we would do well to download and read the BSA's 900 kB report on piracy. Each and every one of us can do our part to help eliminate piracy. ;-)
He went to Reed. Everybody there likes doing the work. That's why we Reedies go to Reed.
Since he claims that his contraption cools his room, some step in your analysis must fail. Can you please show me evidence that he kept the refridgerator in his room? Because it looks to me like he was living in a house. And most houses keep their refridgerators in the kitchen.
Yes... he's moving the heat outside. By pumping the water out of his window. So he is actually reducing the heat in the room.
Hey thanks, that looks kind of good.