Belief/evidence

Aw man, I'm really dang good in this area.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

it still does not violate the rule

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What rule?
Want to take t hings into context for a second?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if you read the previous few posts, you'll see that the rule is that nothing can be both true and false at the same time

 

I'm not reading any further posts. And thats bullshit. It is true and false at the same time that....

Yup, I can think of an example.

 

First of all true and false are not states of matter. They are just declarations of value assigned to statements. Because of the limits of logic, it is quite easy to end up in paradoxical positions where something is both true and false, self referential statements in particular are difficult for first order logic.

Second by changing the axioms you base your logic on you can easily have varying degrees of truth, fuzzy logic being the classic example

Finally quantum CNOT gates are not true, false, both, either or neither. They have representational states which we might map to those concepts, but that's it. Just like the current gates' values of open or closed are mapped to true and false.

 

Tell that to a computer engineer.

You don't need QM superposition to see "true and false at the same time".
An ordinary inverter is a 'circuit' that swaps the input and output. The input and output are inversions of each other simultaneously. This is another way to say "true and false at the same time".

 

then you're just applying the rule out of context

 

Right. QM has no relevance to the facts. When operating within the parameters of logic, it is a contradiction for anything to be true and false at the same time. The claim that something can be true and false at the same time is not a logical claim.

 

You switched contexts lixluke. You went from wizard to lixluke fast!

 

So you are wholly ignorant on the topic. No problem.

Here is a nice write up on inverter logic gates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverter_(logic_gate)

Now point to "false." No luck? "Computer engineers" know better than to go there.

An inverter raises or lowers the input current inversely to the input current. When the current is high we treat that as "on" or "1." When it is low we treat it as "off" or "0."

But "true" is just an arbitrary designation for the current being high and "false" is just an arbitrary designation for the current being low.

 

What context?

 

So then, you must know all about how engineers don't use Boolean logic, huh?

You know there's a class of logical frames that use only true/false predicates? Electronic computers do this too.
"True and false" simultaneity is a part of the way they work. Whether this is applicable to real-life 'logic' I suppose depends on what you think it is.

 

All,

The thread has gone seriously askew.
If people would like to get back on topic, that's all well and good.
If, alternatively, people would like to discuss the True/False dichotomy in its philosophical sense, then someone feel free to start a new thread.
If someone would like to discuss the science of logic gates, then feel free to start a thread in another forum.

In any case, suffice it to say that unless this thread gets back on track, I'll be closing it soon.

Cheers.

 

OK, here's my "Zen of EE" approach: observation or 'seeing' is best, when the least effort is made to 'see' anything. One sees best by 'not looking'...

 

As a wise man told me once... "Only when eyes shut can you truly see target!"

Or was that from Karate Kid 2... never too sure :/

 

things can be true and false simultaneously/rationally when perspective is considered.

god is real, for instance.

That is quite true to many, many people, yet quite not true to many others.

Two people in a room with a ball in the middle that is black on one side and white on the other. It's positioned such that each sees only one color. as such the ball is reportedly both "only black" and "only white" at the same time.

Looking deeper at this example reveals that truth is dependent upon the information available to establish what is true.

Since each act of judging what is true is an act executed by a mind, it follows that perspective is always an important consideration regarding truth.

certainly one can argue "not enough context was provided" above, but this is weak, as generally the provided context is not a matter of choice at the time the judgement of truth has to be executed.

like i said before...

truth is a matter of practicality. insisting it's absolute is an act of ego, not fact. though it can be both, the absolute can't be proven absolutely, but merely agreed upon as a matter of practicality.

 

what someone believes is independent of the truth in an objective reality. we can call things that may not be true from our perspective, true for practical reasons, but the truth of the matter is that there cannot be something that is both true and false. that is a contradiction and by definition, doesn't exist.

 

A wonderful world of 1's and 0's which are represented electronically via gates and high/on or low/off current flow.

If you want words I suggest predicate logic.

But be that as it may a low/off gate is not "false" or even "0." It can represent these in your head, but what it actually is, is low/off.

You seem to have trouble with "represents." Low voltage can represent the concept of "false" without actually being "false."

FYI and inverter gate is also a class A amplifier when feed a low/off signal.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You've just indicated that you seem to be the one with trouble; "represents" a low voltage huh? What's a "low" voltage, smart guy? Does it look like the inversion of a "high" voltage, maybe?

What does "low" or "off" mean again??