(0=0)=(1=1)

[Magnus Anderson]

"Square circles exist" and "Women are men" mean one and the same thing?

Sure. Both mean "true".

Square circles do exist in a taxicab geometry; and "Women are men" could be construed as true if "men" is taken to mean "human being of either sex; a person.".

If you don't understand what other people are saying, you should ask instead of presuming. It has become clear that you have trouble understanding simple statements such as "Square circles exist" and "Women are men". You invoke taxicab geometry and you interpret the word "men" to mean "human beings". Wasn't it clear that I was using the word "men" to mean "male human beings"? Are you really going to say you didn't know that? The same goes for square circles. Are you going to tell us that you REALLY thought that I was talking about taxicab geometry?

I have no idea what absurd point you are trying to make.

Exactly. You have no clue what I'm talking about but you are nonetheless sure it's something absurd. It has to be, right? That's the problem with you. You really are a bad listener.

But if your entire point was to distinguish between absurdities - naaah. One absurdity is as absurd as the next. You could even stretch it as far as to say "absurd" and "meaningless" are synonymous.

No, my point was that "Women are men" and "Square circles exist" are two different statements that mean two different things even though they are both equally self-contradictory and ultimately unable to represent anything. The first statement is saying "Every imaginable woman can be accurately described using the word man". The second is saying "There are shapes in reality that can be accurately described using the term square-circle". Can you see the difference? They are talking about different things (one is about women, the other is about shapes) and they are describing them in different ways (one is describing them as if they are all women, the other as if some of them are square circles.)

[Skepdick]

If you don't understand what other people are saying, you should ask instead of presuming. It has become clear that you have trouble understanding simple statements such as "Square circles exist" and "Women are men". You invoke taxicab geometry and you interpret the word "men" to mean "human beings". Wasn't it clear that I was using the word "men" to mean "male human beings"? Are you really going to say you didn't know that? The same goes for square circles. Are you going to tell us that you REALLY thought that I was talking about taxicab geometry?

You asked me if they are "the same". I came up with a interpretative context in which their sameness is true. Exactly as you asked me to do.

And now you are upset for me satisfying your request. I guess I can't please you...

Exactly. You have no clue what I'm talking about but you are nonetheless sure it's something absurd. It has to be, right? That's the problem with you. You really are a bad listener.

No, I am not. You are a bad speaker.

No, my point was that "Women are men" and "Square circles exist" are two different statements that mean two different things even though they are both equally self-contradictory and ultimately unable to represent anything.

Weird. If they are absurd, self-contradictory and non-representative of anything that sure sounds like both statements are meaningless.

And in so far as they are both meaningless - they mean exactly the same thing. Nothing.

The first statement is saying "Every imaginable woman can be accurately described using the word man"

Which means "the above sentence is descriptively accurate of the objects it refers to"

The second is saying "There are shapes in reality that can be accurately described using the term square-circle"

Which means "the above sentence is descriptively accurate of the objects it refers to"

Can you see the difference? They are talking about different things (one is about women, the other is about shapes) and they are describing them in different ways (one is describing them as if they are all women, the other as if some of them are square circles.)

I can see the difference, but why can't you see the similarity?

Any two things are the same, except for their differences.
Any two things are different, except for their similarities.
Some things are incomparable.

Language is incredibly flexible. If you are a flexible person.

[Magnus Anderson]

Weird. If they are absurd, self-contradictory and non-representative of anything that sure sounds like both statements are meaningless.

And in so far as they are both meaningless - they mean exactly the same thing. Nothing.

As I said earlier, the meaning of any given statement is determined by two elements:

1) The portion of reality it refers to.

2) The description of that portion of reality.

Two different statements are said to have one and the same meaning if and only if they refer to the same portion of reality and if they are describing it in exactly the same way.

And as I said in my previous post, the referred portion of reality in "Square circle exist" is "The set of all shapes that exist" and the description of that portion of reality is "Some or all of these shapes are square circles". Compare that to the statement "Women are men" where the referred portion of reality is "Every woman that can be imagined" and the description of that portion of reality is "They are all male human beings". As you can see, the two statements refer to two different portions of reality and they say two different things about what they are referring to. It's "All shapes that exist" versus "All women that can be imagined" and "Square circles" versus "Male human beings". In other words, their meanings are very different. That they are both self-contradictory has no effect on that.

Your claim that the two statements are self-contradictory is true but it is irrelevant within the context of our discussion. If you can't see that yourself, let me explain.

It all started with this Eodinhvoj7's post where he said:

1. There is only the totality, ie everything.
2. As there is only the totality this totality is 1.
3. However considering there is only the totality there is no comparison for it necessary for it to take form thus it is 'void' or 0.
4. 1=0 through the totality.

My claim was that his premise #3 is false and that his argument is logically invalid i.e. that his conclusion does not follow from his premises. In order to demonstrate that his argument is logically invalid, I went on to explain what actually follows. It wasn't really necessary to do so -- it was a bonus -- but for some reason you decided to fixate on it.

What was your response? You response was that I contradicted myself by first saying that his argument is logically valid and then saying that his argument is logically invalid. I explained to you that there wasn't one but two arguments involved. There was his argument and there was my argument. My claim was that HIS argument is logically invalid and MY argument is logically valid. You responded by ignoring the point that I am making and simply insisting that I did something that I never did (which is a very lazy form of response.)

Then you decided to respond to my claim that "1=0" and "Nothing can exist" are different statements. You responded by saying that if they are absurd, which they are, that they are NOT different. You were, obviously, objecting to my claim. I assumed that you did understand what I said -- there's a possibility that you didn't -- and went to explain to you that, although the two statements are absurd, that does not mean they are the same. I went on to explain to you what it means for two statements to be the same. I explained that two statements are the same if and only if they have one and the same meaning; and I then went on to explain what it means for two statements to have one and the same meaning. I told you that for two statements to have one and the same meaning, they must refer to the same portion of reality and must be saying the same exact thing about that portion of reality.

Here's the thing. An argument is composed of two or more statements. If you want to change its statements, without changing the argument, you have to substitute them with statements that have the exact same meaning. If you take Eodnihvoj7's argument and replace "1=0" with "Nothing can exist", you end up with a DIFFERENT argument. That's the entire point. That's what I meant by "They are different statements"

[Skepdick]

Weird. If they are absurd, self-contradictory and non-representative of anything that sure sounds like both statements are meaningless.

And in so far as they are both meaningless - they mean exactly the same thing. Nothing.

As I said earlier, the meaning of any given statement is determined by two elements:

1) The portion of reality it refers to.

2) The description of that portion of reality.

Two different statements are said to have one and the same meaning if and only if they refer to the same portion of reality and if they are describing it in exactly the same way.

And if neither of them refer to a portion of reality, or represent anything then they share a referent. That referent being - nothing.

And as I said in my previous post, the referred portion of reality in "Square circle exist" is "The set of all shapes that exist" and the description of that portion of reality is "Some or all of these shapes are square circles".

And unless you can provide an example of a square circle it's possible that your existence claim is erroneous - an the category of shapes you describe as "square circles" is uninhabited. An empty set.

Compare that to the statement "Women are men" where the referred portion of reality is "Every woman that can be imagined" and the description of that portion of reality is "They are all male human beings".

And unless you can provide an example of a woman that is a man it's possible that your claim is erroneous - an the category of things you describe as "a woman that is a man" is uninhabited. An empty set.

As you can see, the two statements refer to two different portions of reality and they say two different things about what they are referring to.

As you can see - the two statements appear to be uninhabited/empty sets. They may exist as mental constructions/concepts only, but unless you can inhabit your mental constructions by providing examples of "square circle" and "woman man" then they DON'T refer to any part of reality, and therefore mean the exact same thing: nothing.

It's "All shapes that exist" versus "All women that can be imagined" and "Square circles" versus "Male human beings". In other words, their meanings are very different. That they are both self-contradictory has no effect on that.

That they both fail to refer to; and describe any part of reality equates their meaning. They fail to satisfy your very own conditions 1; and 2 (above).

Your claim that the two statements are self-contradictory is true but it is irrelevant within the context of our discussion. If you can't see that yourself, let me explain.

They aren't "self-contradictory" - they are just unsatisfiable.

My claim was that his premise #3 is false and that his argument is logically invalid i.e. that his conclusion does not follow from his premises. In order to demonstrate that his argument is logically invalid, I went on to explain what actually follows.

That's disingenius of you. It may not follow in your frame of mind, but it may follow in his frame of mind.

Why are you imposing your frame on his argument?

My claim was that HIS argument is logically invalid and MY argument is logically valid.

So we agree then. That you are imposing your meta-logic and discarding his meta-logic.

Great! I already told you that you are an ass.

You responded by ignoring the point that I am making and simply insisting that I did something that I never did (which is a very lazy form of response.)

You did do it. In so far as anyone can observe you saying...

If you accept the premise, which I don't, then it follows.

If it follows from the premise (and you say it does!), then the argument is valid to you.
If the premise is false (and you say it is!) then the argument is unsound to you.

In so far as you are going to gaslight people who can read your very own words you are intellectually dishonest.

Here's the thing. An argument is composed of two or more statements. If you want to change its statements, without changing the argument, you have to substitute them with statements that have the exact same meaning.

No you don't. You can substitute them with statements which have completely different meaning, but the exact same implication.

If you take Eodnihvoj7's argument and replace "1=0" with "Nothing can exist", you end up with a DIFFERENT argument.

The difference is banal if the implicationis the same.

You sure seem very selective about banality.

[Magnus Anderson]

They may exist as mental constructions/concepts only, but unless you can inhabit your mental constructions by providing examples of "square circle" and "woman man" then they DON'T refer to any part of reality, and therefore mean the exact same thing: nothing.

That they both fail to refer to; and describe any part of reality equates their meaning. They fail to satisfy your very own conditions 1; and 2 (above).

Both statements are false. There's no doubt about that. But you very obviously failed to understand the definition of the word "meaning" that I provided.

The portion of reality that "Square circles exist" refers to is "The set of all shapes that exist". Such a portion of reality clearly exists. But of course, you misunderstood what "the referred portion of reality" stands for. And even if such a portion didn't exist, it wouldn't matter.

The description of the referred portion of reality in "Square circles exist" is "One or more square circles mixed with zero or more shapes of other kind". Whether that's true or false is irrelevant. Only the description matters.

Again, as I said before, two statements are said to have one and the same meaning if and only if they are talking about the same portion of reality and they are describing it in the same way. That's not the case with "Square circles exist" and "Women are men" because "The set of all shapes that exist" and "Every woman that can be imagined" are two different portions of reality and "Square circles" and "Male human beings" are two different descriptions.

Either you want to consider the possibility that you're misunderstanding everything I am saying or you don't. If you don't, it's game over. Nothing more to discuss.

They aren't "self-contradictory" - they are just unsatisfiable.

They are self-contradictory. "Women are men" is literally saying "Women are not women". And "Square circles exist" is saying "Squares that aren't squares exist". It's a violation of the law of non-contradiction. But then, given what little I know about you, there's a very high probability that you're one of those pseudo-intellectuals who question that law.

Why are you imposing your frame on his argument?

Who are you to say that I am imposing anything on him? I am simply saying that he's violating HIS rules. If you're going to say "But you don't know what rules are his rules", I am going to ask you "Who are you tell me that I don't know what rules are his rules?"

If you want to promote the idea that every person has his own rules for what's correct and what's incorrect reasoning, then you will have to present a proper, and convincing, argument in favor of that -- and somewhere else.

In so far as you are going to gaslight people who can read your very own words you are intellectually dishonest.

People are free, and are even encouraged, to read my words and see for themselves who you really are.

[wtf]

The portion of reality that "Square circles exist" refers to is "The set of all shapes that exist".

I wish people would choose a different example. There most definitely are square circles. The unit circle in the taxicab metric is a square. There's a picture of a square circle on the linked page.

This is the unit circle in the taxicab metric. It's the set of points whose distance from the origin is 1, where "distance" is the distance on a square grid of streets and avenues. In other words to get from 1st avenue and 1st street to 2nd avenue and 2nd street, you have to drive two blocks. You can't drive across the diagonal.

[Magnus Anderson]

I wish people would choose a different example. There most definitely are square circles. The unit circle in the taxicab metric is a square. There's a picture of a square circle on the linked page.

Noone is talking about taxicab geometry.

[Skepdick]

They may exist as mental constructions/concepts only, but unless you can inhabit your mental constructions by providing examples of "square circle" and "woman man" then they DON'T refer to any part of reality, and therefore mean the exact same thing: nothing.

That they both fail to refer to; and describe any part of reality equates their meaning. They fail to satisfy your very own conditions 1; and 2 (above).

Both statements are false. There's no doubt about that. But you very obviously failed to understand the definition of the word "meaning" that I provided.

That's because your definition of the term "meaning' doesn't cohere with your use of it. You are using it in a polymorphic manner, so trying to define it seems like a stupid endeavor - ay definition you offer will be necessarily incomplete.

The portion of reality that "Square circles exist" refers to is "The set of all shapes that exist".

That's a contradiction.

The set of all shapes that exist is NOT empty.
The set of square circles which exist is empty.

It's precisely because the set of square circles is empty is why square circles don't exist!

Such a portion of reality clearly exists.

Stop confusing your readers! You literally started this post by claiming that the statement "Square circles exist" is false.

SO... "square circles exist" is false. Which means precisely that "square circles DON'T exist" is true!

But of course, you misunderstood what "the referred portion of reality" stands for. And even if such a portion didn't exist, it wouldn't matter.

What the fuck?!? Why are you pervaricating "reality" and "existence"? Those terms are equivalent!

Everything that is real exists; and everything that doesn't exist is not real.

Saying "square circles exist" means "square circles are real".
Saying "square circles don't exist" means "square circles are not real".

The description of the referred portion of reality in "Square circles exist" is "One or more square circles mixed with zero or more shapes of other kind". Whether that's true or false is irrelevant. Only the description matters.

You can't mix the empty set of square circles with the non-empty set of existing shapes!

You can't "mix" nothing with something and still call it mixing!!!

Again, as I said before, two statements are said to have one and the same meaning if and only if they are talking about the same portion of reality and they are describing it in the same way.

Any two phrases which reduce to the empty set (a.k.a VOID) mean exactly the same thing! NOTHING.

All descriptions of NOTHING describe the exact same thing. NOTHING.

Far more importantly....NOTHING is NOT a portion of reality!

That's not the case with "Square circles exist" and "Women are men" because "The set of all shapes that exist" and "Every woman that can be imagined" are two different portions of reality and "Square circles" and "Male human beings" are two different descriptions.

Bollocks.

Every woman can be imagined. Every woman that's also a man can't be imagined - because it's an empty set!

And the empty set doesn't describe any portion of reality whatsoever.

Either you want to consider the possibility that you're misunderstanding everything I am saying or you don't. If you don't, it's game over. Nothing more to discuss.

False dichotomy. There's a third possibility here.

You are using the word "meaning" polymorphically and your definitions and theory of meaning can't account for your own use, thus I keep pointing out the incoherence between your proclaimed definition and your actual use.

But because you are a dumb philosopher who can't even define "define", you keep falling into silly circularities about defining your terms instead of just using them.

They are self-contradictory. "Women are men" is literally saying "Women are not women".

BULLSHIT!

"not woman" doesn't mean "man"!!! This is NOT a woman, and it most definitely is not a man.

And "Square circles exist" is saying "Squares that aren't squares exist".

More bullshit, you are implying that the phrase "is not square" is interchangeable with the phrase "circle".

It's a violation of the law of non-contradiction. But then, given what little I know about you, there's a very high probability that you're one of those pseudo-intellectuals who question that law.

Maybe you are one of those pseudo-intellectuals who doesn't even understand that the "law" of non-contradiction is incoherent and irrelevant in this universe.

When you use linear logic (which models the uni-directional flow of time) then the paradoxes of set arrising from unrestricted comprehension simply disappear.

Who are you to say that I am imposing anything on him? I am simply saying that he's violating HIS rules.

How could you possibly assert that if you don't know what HIS rules are?

If you're going to say "But you don't know what rules are his rules", I am going to ask you "Who are you tell me that I don't know what rules are his rules?"

What title, prestige, qualification or social status do you demand of me in order for me to be able to state a fucking fact?

Surely he understands his own, made-up, rules better than you do ?!?

So when you are "simply saying" that he is violating HIS rules, you are in fact saying that he is violating your misunderstanding of HIS rules.

And I am going to ask you back: Who are you to tell us that that you know what his rules are?

I am not telling you what his rules are! I am simply making an OBSERVATION and I am following it up with a statement of FACT.

The fact is that in order for you to insist that he is violating his own rules, you must necessarily understand how to practice his rules better than he does!

This was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because any course of action can be made out to accord with the rule -- Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations §201a

If you want to promote the idea that every person has his own rules for what's correct and what's incorrect reasoning, then you will have to present a proper, and convincing, argument in favor of that -- and somewhere else.

I am not promoting such a view at all! I am simply promoting the ideas of objectivity, neutrality and freedom from cultural biases.

If you want to promote the idea that there is such a thing as "rules for correct reasoning", then you will have to present a propper, and convincing argument in favor of that.

But, of course, before you can make such an argument... first you will have to convince us that there is such a thing as "proper, and convincing arguments".

Of course, I have absolutely no idea how you are going to do that... because I don't believe in ""proper, and convincing arguments".

People are free, and are even encouraged, to read my words and see for themselves who you really are.

How could they possibly see me for WHO I am when I am nobody?

Western philosophy has your mind all confused with paradoxes of identity.

[Skepdick]

The portion of reality that "Square circles exist" refers to is "The set of all shapes that exist".

I wish people would choose a different example. There most definitely are square circles. The unit circle in the taxicab metric is a square. There's a picture of a square circle on the linked page.

This is the unit circle in the taxicab metric. It's the set of points whose distance from the origin is 1, where "distance" is the distance on a square grid of streets and avenues. In other words to get from 1st avenue and 1st street to 2nd avenue and 2nd street, you have to drive two blocks. You can't drive across the diagonal.

Two angles to this...

1. Agree, because the object satisfies the definition of a circle given the geometry AND it looks like a square.

2. Disagree, because while it satisfies the definition of a circle it doesn't satisfy the definition of a square. Even though it looks like one. So you are effectively guilty of a double standard.

[wtf]

So you are effectively guilty of a double standard.

Otherwise I'd have no standards at all.

[Skepdick]

So you are effectively guilty of a double standard.

Otherwise I'd have no standards at all.

Well, you know... Since "standards" is plural it implies "two or more"; having no standards still leaves us wondering whether you have one; or none.

[Magnus Anderson]

That's a contradiction.

The set of all shapes that exist is NOT empty.
The set of square circles which exist is empty.

Nah, you merely don't understand what the term "the referred portion of reality" refers to.

You can't mix the empty set of square circles with the non-empty set of existing shapes!

You can't "mix" nothing with something and still call it mixing!!!

It's a description.

Any two phrases which reduce to the empty set (a.k.a VOID) mean exactly the same thing! NOTHING.

All descriptions of NOTHING describe the exact same thing. NOTHING.

Far more importantly....NOTHING is NOT a portion of reality!

And you have understood . . . absolutely nothing of what I said.

You are free to repeat yourself ad nausem but don't be surprised when people stop talking to you.

Bollocks.

Every woman can be imagined. Every woman that's also a man can't be imagined - because it's an empty set!

And the empty set doesn't describe any portion of reality whatsoever.

Learn to read, moron.

But because you are a dumb philosopher who can't even define "define", you keep falling into silly circularities about defining your terms instead of just using them.

You sure as hell are full of it.

BULLSHIT!

"not woman" doesn't mean "man"!!! This is NOT a woman, and it most definitely is not a man.

But "man" does mean "not woman". If someone is a man, he's not a woman. So, if women are men, it logically follows that women are not women.

But I guess you're trying really hard to be different, special and unique. And you really are -- but not in a good way. Rather than being smart in a way that noone else is, you are being dumb in a way that noone else is. That's what happens when people try too hard to be unique.

Surely he understands his own, made-up, rules better than you do ?!?

Not necessarily.

I am not telling you what his rules are

Yes, you are.

Of course, I have absolutely no idea how you are going to do that... because I don't believe in ""proper, and convincing arguments".

It has become clear to me that you're an anti-philosopher.

Anyways, keep this attitude of yours and we're done. I have better things to do than to debate deranged children.

[Skepdick]

Nah, you merely don't understand what the term "the referred portion of reality" refers to.

That's a false accusation.

It's precisely because I understand that it doesn't refer to ANY portion of reality is why I am calling you out on your bullshit.

It's a description.

Descriptions have referents.

Your "description ("square circles which exist") does not!

The description "red" describes THIS COLOR.
The "description" "square circles which exist" doesn't describe ANY shape!

And you have understood . . . absolutely nothing of what I said.

I have understood you perfectly! That is precisely WHY I am criticising your misguided ideas!

You are free to repeat yourself ad nausem but don't be surprised when people stop talking to you.

Good thing I am charitable then, and I am giving you constructive criticism - despite you going round and round like a washing mashine?

Learn to read, moron.

Does your epistemology actually allow for the possibility that you are the moron in this conversation?

You sure as hell are full of it.

Nowhere near as full as somebody who thinks they can account for their own use of language using even more language!

But "man" does mean "not woman".

The fuck?

Then "man' also means "not chicken"; and "not orange", and "not cactus".
And while we are at it... chicken also means "not woman"; orange also means "not woman"; and cactus too... not woman.

If someone is a man, he's not a woman.

Yeah, if someone is a man he is not a cactus, orange or a chicken either.

So, if women are men, it logically follows that women are not women.

Anything follows from a contradiction.

Women are men.
Women are not men.
Men are men.
Men are not men.
And then some.

But I guess you're trying really hard to be different, special and unique. And you really are -- but not in a good way. Rather than being smart in a way that noone else is, you are being dumb in a way that noone else is. That's what happens when people try too hard to be unique.

Is that your auto-biography? Because from my perspective uniqueness is undecidable.

Not necessarily.

Well, sure. Maybe you are a mind-reader.

Yes, you are.

And now you are insisting on gaslighting me. OK mind reader.

It has become clear to me that you're an anti-philosopher.

Yeah well, those idiots can't even determine whether the rejeciton of philosophy is a philosophy; or a non-philosophy.

Anyways, keep this attitude of yours and we're done. I have better things to do than to debate deranged children.

That's fucking ironic, no? Debateing is what deranged, adult children who self-identify as philosophers do.

Grown up people just plan and execute ideas.

[Magnus Anderson]

The fuck?

Then "man' also means "not chicken"; and "not orange", and "not cactus".

Yes, it means all of those things but none of them are relevant. You are the master of being irrelevant.

The point is that "Women are men" is a contradiction in terms because when you say that someone is a man you're saying they are NOT a woman. Thus, when you say that women are men, you are saying that women are not women. P and not-P. That's all there is to it.

That's fucking ironic, no? Debateing is what deranged, adult children who self-identify as philosophers do.

Grown up people just plan and execute ideas.

Okay, I take it that you're also an anti-debate moron. Not surprising at all. "Let's not learn from each other and just do what each one of us thinks is right."

Either way, you chose your destiny. You are on your own from now on.

[Skepdick]

The point is that "Women are men" is a contradiction in terms because when you say that someone is a man you're saying they are NOT a woman. Thus, when you say that women are men, you are saying that women are not women. P and not-P. That's all there is to it.

Yes, yes. P and not-P. It's not a problem in linear logic. Which logic are you using?

p-not-p.png

Okay, I take it that you're also an anti-debate moron. Not surprising at all. "Let's not learn from each other and just do what each one of us thinks is right."

It's pretty difficult to engage a classical logician in a debate about ethics/morality, right and wrong.

I mean it's probably going to be very difficult to even find any common ground.

You probably thing not wrong means right; or that not right means wrong.

I don't really subscribe to that sort of thinking.