From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: A = A. Isn't this obvious?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:12:56 GMT

In article <BvB0Ep.5GD@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K.  
Yoder) writes:
> In article <1992Sep28.122203.7922@linus.mitre.org> bwise@hemlock.mitre.org  
(Barry Wise) writes:
> >In article <Bv8Fzv.D99@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian  
K.  
> >Yoder) writes:
> >> Absolutely not!  Do you think that what you are typing on right now is  
both
> >> a computer and not a computer? (At the same time and in the same respect.)
> >> Is it possible that you are both in  California and not in California?
> >> Is it possible that your are both reading and not reading this message?
>  
> >I'm standing on the border of California with one foot in Nevada. Am I in  
> >California or not? 
> 
> Well, that depends on your definition of what "Being in California" is. If
> you use a consistent definition, you either are or are not.  The kind of
> objection you are making is something I find that people do all the time and  
I
> find it quite annoying.  If you change the context of a true statement, it
> makes the statement a different one, it doesn't prove the first statement
> false, and it does not prove that contradictory statements can be true.
> 
> If you defined "Being in California." as "Having part of one's body in
> California." then standing with one foot on either side of the border
> one is "In California.".  If you are going to use another definition, then
> your answer might be different, but the facts are the facts.  They are
> not indeterminate.

That was my point. The facts are the facts but situations in the real world are  
multivalued. You made a statement about only being able to be in California or  
not then when someone points out a contradiction you get annoyed. If we are not  
in agreement about what are our definitions we wind up saying the same thing  
but with totally different meanings and implications. Just as Jesse Jackson and  
George Wallace can stand up and both say they are Democrats and mean totally  
different things. Words have more than one meaning and things have many  
attributes connected with them. Applying simple logic in complex situations is  
dangerous.
> 
> >I'm typing this on a typewriter (containing a microprocessor
> >and a disk drive). Is it a computer or not?  I'm using a voice synthesizer
> > to output your message. Am I reading it or not?  Answers to the above  
> >questions: Yes.
> 
> Well, I would say that a typewriter which happens to have a microprocessor
> in it is not a "computer" in the sense I meant.  You seem to think that
> just because the referents of some of the terms are somehow different just
> because you choose to refer to them differently.  Do you think that because  
of
> these borderline cases somehow prove that facts don't have a definite
> identity?  This is quite strange, and I can't believe that you really think 
> these things are contradictory.  It's just a 3rd-grader's idea of an
> argument.

No, simplistic use of logic and unspoken definitions are third grade thinking.  
When confronted with the fact that the edges of definitions are soft you just  
say " that's not what I meant!". The whole point of those examples is that  
definitions encompass a range of real world objects. Real world definitions are  
fuzzy.

>  If accused of breaking a window, an 8-year old might say
> "I didn't break any windows. (But I did hit a ball which passed through  
through
> a glass panel on that house.)".  You are essentially saying that such 
> arguments are valid.
> 
But the context IS important! When you say " did you break that window?" the  
unspoken part of the thought is " did you do that on purpose?". The child will  
be responding not only to the words but the tone.  When he responds with " no I  
didn't" with the unspoken part " I didn't do it on purpose!". If he threw the  
ball to another child who hit it with a bat through the window he could respond  
with "no I didn't" meaning he didn't have the bat when what you meant by your  
comment was " were you kids playing ball where you weren't supposed to" i.e.  
are you guilty as a group of breaking the window? 

BTW If you don't think the world is indeterminant study quantum physics for  
awhile. :-).

--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)