Does a true dichotomy exist?
I've seen false dichotomy tossed in as a fallacy on several arguements. It appears that there may be no such animal, and any dichotomy, duality, black or white situation outside computers or electrical circuits is, in fact, a lie.
If you have any clarification on this, please enlighten.
There is one in my pance.
Quote from: Richter on January 26, 2011, 02:52:16 PM
Does a true dichotomy exist?
I've seen false dichotomy tossed in as a fallacy on several arguements. It appears that there may be no such animal, and any dichotomy, duality, black or white situation outside computers or electrical circuits is, in fact, a lie.
If you have any clarification on this, please enlighten.
As a Taoist, I'm totally biased and unfit to answer this question. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 26, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
Quote from: Richter on January 26, 2011, 02:52:16 PM
Does a true dichotomy exist?
I've seen false dichotomy tossed in as a fallacy on several arguements. It appears that there may be no such animal, and any dichotomy, duality, black or white situation outside computers or electrical circuits is, in fact, a lie.
If you have any clarification on this, please enlighten.
As a Taoist, I'm totally biased and unfit to answer this question. :lulz:
I once had a talk with a co worker about Tao. It nearly became a fist fight. I'm inclined to say Tao is superior.
A dichotomy can exist if you set up systems with game rules that describes discreet elements.
My current mode of thinking still inhabits the realm of "Chaos = Order (Illusion) + Disorder (Illusion)", which is shorthand for exactly the problem you're running into-- that in the universe we exist in right now, when looked at as a whole, there is no such thing a duality.
But that becomes a very hard perspective to hold onto, because as humans our brains aren't built to see reality that way. So it then becomes a question of where the limits of our Illusions are, where do we draw the line, which game rules can we choose. "2+2=4" is true when we use the game rules of formal math, but if you change the game rules, to (for instance) art, then "2+2=an ineffable flavor of Mediterranian sunset" could be an acceptable answer.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 26, 2011, 03:08:47 PM
A dichotomy can exist if you set up systems with game rules that describes discreet elements.
My current mode of thinking still inhabits the realm of "Chaos = Order (Illusion) + Disorder (Illusion)", which is shorthand for exactly the problem you're running into-- that in the universe we exist in right now, when looked at as a whole, there is no such thing a duality.
But that becomes a very hard perspective to hold onto, because as humans our brains aren't built to see reality that way. So it then becomes a question of where the limits of our Illusions are, where do we draw the line, which game rules can we choose. "2+2=4" is true when we use the game rules of formal math, but if you change the game rules, to (for instance) art, then "2+2=an ineffable flavor of Mediterranian sunset" could be an acceptable answer.
Interesting stuff. I may be a little too RAW in this, but I'd say we're all involved, willingly or not, in a system of game rules that describe discreet elements. In this view, this reality tunnel, we can trick ourselves into thinking that a dichotomy as a viewpoint works, but then we end up in excessively black vs. white thinking. Dichotomy strikes me as useful shorthand for situations that don't really require deeper explaination or inquiry.
"Is anyone in that burning house alive?", "No they're all dead." Cool! no reason to have anyone risk their asses.
As far as personal views, I generally try to stick with how much of what's going on I can recognize, understand, or learn.
Yup, that's pretty much what I was trying to convey. Of course, it leads to a lot of arguments where the scope is not previously defined, and each person has a different limit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 26, 2011, 04:03:41 PM
Yup, that's pretty much what I was trying to convey. Of course, it leads to a lot of arguments where the scope is not previously defined, and each person has a different limit.
That is why it can really only be discussed in the abstract. Otherwise it becomes a mental circle jerk.
Quote from: Richter on January 26, 2011, 03:53:48 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD on January 26, 2011, 03:08:47 PM
A dichotomy can exist if you set up systems with game rules that describes discreet elements.
My current mode of thinking still inhabits the realm of "Chaos = Order (Illusion) + Disorder (Illusion)", which is shorthand for exactly the problem you're running into-- that in the universe we exist in right now, when looked at as a whole, there is no such thing a duality.
But that becomes a very hard perspective to hold onto, because as humans our brains aren't built to see reality that way. So it then becomes a question of where the limits of our Illusions are, where do we draw the line, which game rules can we choose. "2+2=4" is true when we use the game rules of formal math, but if you change the game rules, to (for instance) art, then "2+2=an ineffable flavor of Mediterranian sunset" could be an acceptable answer.
Interesting stuff. I may be a little too RAW in this, but I'd say we're all involved, willingly or not, in a system of game rules that describe discreet elements. In this view, this reality tunnel, we can trick ourselves into thinking that a dichotomy as a viewpoint works, but then we end up in excessively black vs. white thinking. Dichotomy strikes me as useful shorthand for situations that don't really require deeper explaination or inquiry.
"Is anyone in that burning house alive?", "No they're all dead." Cool! no reason to have anyone risk their asses.
As far as personal views, I generally try to stick with how much of what's going on I can recognize, understand, or learn.
So what we could say is that Dichotomy exists within the models that we used to describe/discuss/investigate reality, rather than reality itself.
Yup. But considering that we experience life through models, and not "reality itself", it's pretty fucking important to figure out in which model a certain dichotomy belongs.
Sounds about right, incorrect overlap of where people are using the timesaving tricks / model, and where others are being more stringent.
A or not-A is a true dichotomy off the top of my head. Of course, that only applies to the subset of problems where Logic actually applies. IE, no problems that actually matter outside of science & engineering.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 26, 2011, 05:07:03 PM
A or not-A is a true dichotomy off the top of my head. Of course, that only applies to the subset of problems where Logic actually applies. IE, no problems that actually matter outside of science & engineering.
Which is covered in the "game rule" provision as stated above.
Its actually one of the game rules, rather than something you'd generate with game rules. But uh.. yeah I guess the point is the same.
Quote from: Richter on January 26, 2011, 03:07:29 PM
Quote from: Doktor Phox on January 26, 2011, 02:58:14 PM
Quote from: Richter on January 26, 2011, 02:52:16 PM
Does a true dichotomy exist?
I've seen false dichotomy tossed in as a fallacy on several arguements. It appears that there may be no such animal, and any dichotomy, duality, black or white situation outside computers or electrical circuits is, in fact, a lie.
If you have any clarification on this, please enlighten.
As a Taoist, I'm totally biased and unfit to answer this question. :lulz:
I once had a talk with a co worker about Tao. It nearly became a fist fight. I'm inclined to say Tao is superior.
:lulz:
Also LMNO: :motorcycle:
All I can add is that even in digital computer circuits, the dichotomy of one/zero is also forced upon the system, so in a sense not even there it's a true one. Most chips use 0V for False and 5V for True, but as soon as you start building complex logic gates with transistors using that model, you're going to find all sorts of voltages in between, especially when a signal is just changing from a one to a zero or vice-versa.
That's why a CPU has a "clock" signal in it, which is a square wave signal switching between 0 and 1 at the "clock frequency" (that's your 1.6GHz), and the rules of the low-level computer game (implemented in the circuitry) say that the CPU is only allowed to "use" a signal on a line, or propagate it in some way, when the clock signal is on an up- or a down-ramp (when it switches). That way, all the transistors and such can "settle" on their target value (or very near), and consistency is preserved, only 0V and 5V, no shades of gray in between.
Back in the old days, it was popular to "overclock" your CPU, make it run faster (probably still happens, but today's bottlenecks are not always the CPU speed), which amounted simply to making this clock signal run at a higher frequency, allowing the CPU to propagate more values per second, and thus more calculations. The danger of this was that possibly the transistors hadn't yet settled on their 0V or 5V values but somewhere in between, and if you'd feed a 2V = "0.4 True / 0.6 False" value into a logic gate, you didn't get Maybe Logic, unfortunately, instead you'd get undefined behaviour and the computer would hang.
To get back to the topic, the point is, even in those cold binary machines, the 0/1 dichotomy is merely a veil drawn over the many shades that seem to be ever-present in reality.
I like this topic.
Quote from: Triple Zero on January 27, 2011, 05:38:46 PM
All I can add is that even in digital computer circuits, the dichotomy of one/zero is also forced upon the system, so in a sense not even there it's a true one. Most chips use 0V for False and 5V for True, but as soon as you start building complex logic gates with transistors using that model, you're going to find all sorts of voltages in between, especially when a signal is just changing from a one to a zero or vice-versa.
That's why a CPU has a "clock" signal in it, which is a square wave signal switching between 0 and 1 at the "clock frequency" (that's your 1.6GHz), and the rules of the low-level computer game (implemented in the circuitry) say that the CPU is only allowed to "use" a signal on a line, or propagate it in some way, when the clock signal is on an up- or a down-ramp (when it switches). That way, all the transistors and such can "settle" on their target value (or very near), and consistency is preserved, only 0V and 5V, no shades of gray in between.
Back in the old days, it was popular to "overclock" your CPU, make it run faster (probably still happens, but today's bottlenecks are not always the CPU speed), which amounted simply to making this clock signal run at a higher frequency, allowing the CPU to propagate more values per second, and thus more calculations. The danger of this was that possibly the transistors hadn't yet settled on their 0V or 5V values but somewhere in between, and if you'd feed a 2V = "0.4 True / 0.6 False" value into a logic gate, you didn't get Maybe Logic, unfortunately, instead you'd get undefined behaviour and the computer would hang.
To get back to the topic, the point is, even in those cold binary machines, the 0/1 dichotomy is merely a veil drawn over the many shades that seem to be ever-present in reality.
Trip is on the correct digital motorclcye!