Truth table for Immortality?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Truth table for Immortality?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 10:00 pm
Can somebody help construct a good and valid truth table for immortality as contrasted with biological immortality? This isn't for HW or anything, just something I thought of the other day and couldn't quite figure out.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 10:02 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;141178 wrote:
Can somebody help construct a good and valid truth table for immortality as contrasted with biological immortality? This isn't for HW or anything, just something I thought of the other day and couldn't quite figure out.
As it stands, your request doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.
 
Diogenes phil
 
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 10:11 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;141179 wrote:
As it stands, your request doesn't make sense. Please expand on it.


Nothing in the universe is immortal. Some things in the universe are biologically immortal.

Most would say only God is immortal. I am trying to refute this by counter-arguing with biological immortality. The Bible has no references to biological immortality. Is God the sole immortal being, or can biological immortality be used as a counterexample?

If this is just a Sisyphean task then please tell me.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 10:30 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;141182 wrote:
If this is just a Sisyphean task then please tell me.
That depends on what you're trying to do, and I still have no clear idea. For starters, the following couplet is contradictory, so it doesn't appear to make sense:
Diogenes;141182 wrote:
Nothing in the universe is immortal. Some things in the universe are biologically immortal.
What is "biological immortality"?
 
Diogenes phil
 
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 10:40 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;141187 wrote:
That depends on what you're trying to do, and I still have no clear idea. For starters, the following couplet is contradictory, so it doesn't appear to make sense:What is "biological immortality"?


Alright, I have just realized constructing a valid argument is impossible with the given conclusions. Sorry for the waste of time.
 
north
 
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 10:47 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;141178 wrote:
Can somebody help construct a good and valid truth table for immortality as contrasted with biological immortality? This isn't for HW or anything, just something I thought of the other day and couldn't quite figure out.


Universe> planets > a place for life to stand
 
mickalos
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 05:23 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;141188 wrote:
Alright, I have just realized constructing a valid argument is impossible with the given conclusions. Sorry for the waste of time.


That's not really the point, but the point is somewhat technically interesting (at least to some people).

The only things that it even makes sense to talk of constructing truth tables for are words and symbols that can be applied to, or join together, true or false sentences.

And
Or
Implies
Not
Because
I believe
I know

However, in order for these words to have actually have a truth table, they need to be truth functional. This means when we apply these words to true or false sentences, the truth or falsehood of the resulting complex sentences is entirely dependent on the truth values of their component sentences.

For example, 'and' is an example of a truth functional operator. The truth value of the sentence, P and Q, is determined by its constituent sentences; if P is false, or Q is false (or both), then P and Q is not true.

'I know', however, is not truth functional. Look what happens when we attempt to come up with a truth table for it. Take 'I know P', for example. I cannot know something that is false, so it follows that if P is false, then 'I know P' is false:

P| I know P

F| F
T|

However, just because something is true, it doesn't follow that I know it (if only!); there are many true propositions that I do know know, so all we can say is:

P| I know P
F| F
T| ???

Immortality is not something that can be applied to true or false sentences, and even if you tried to, it would probably mean something similar to 'It is necessary that ...', which isn't truth functional.
 
Emil
 
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 12:45 pm
@mickalos,
mickalos;143764 wrote:
That's not really the point, but the point is somewhat technically interesting (at least to some people).

The only things that it even makes sense to talk of constructing truth tables for are words and symbols that can be applied to, or join together, true or false sentences.

And
Or
Implies
Not
Because
I believe
I know

However, in order for these words to have actually have a truth table, they need to be truth functional. This means when we apply these words to true or false sentences, the truth or falsehood of the resulting complex sentences is entirely dependent on the truth values of their component sentences.

For example, 'and' is an example of a truth functional operator. The truth value of the sentence, P and Q, is determined by its constituent sentences; if P is false, or Q is false (or both), then P and Q is not true.

'I know', however, is not truth functional. Look what happens when we attempt to come up with a truth table for it. Take 'I know P', for example. I cannot know something that is false, so it follows that if P is false, then 'I know P' is false:

P| I know P

F| F
T|

However, just because something is true, it doesn't follow that I know it (if only!); there are many true propositions that I do know know, so all we can say is:

P| I know P
F| F
T| ???

Immortality is not something that can be applied to true or false sentences, and even if you tried to, it would probably mean something similar to 'It is necessary that ...', which isn't truth functional.


That's right. Though careful with saying that "and" is truth-functional. It isn't, but conjunction is, and conjunction is often what is expressed with the word "and". See Swartz and Bradley 1979 for a discussion and examples of non-truth functional uses of the words usually used for logical connectors.

Also, the OP is nonsense.
 
HexHammer
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 08:52 am
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;141178 wrote:
Can somebody help construct a good and valid truth table for immortality as contrasted with biological immortality? This isn't for HW or anything, just something I thought of the other day and couldn't quite figure out.
? how is it possible to theorize about something we can't possible theorize about?

We don't have any basis of making any algorithms, contrary life in the galaxy we least have some ability to guess based on concrete observations, but about mortallity we have NO observations ..whatsoever!
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Logic
  3. » Truth table for Immortality?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 11:46:13