Religion and Set Theory

[compilerbitch]

Comments

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

er - what do the symbols mean ????

[robinbloke.livejournal.com]

I'd like it more if I could remember anything from Set theory; damn it's been a while!

[toothycat]

Uh.. but surely (B[ƒ]⇒¬D[ƒ])∧(D[ƒ]⇒¬B[ƒ]) ..?

Re:

[toothycat]

Hmm.. the font doesn't appear to have the necessary HTML entities ^^;

Re:

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily!

Meeple

[casby.livejournal.com]

The excluded middle-path? :) Law of the excluded agnostic?

Faiths are 'fuzzy' logic (to say the least). They're neither necesarily transitive nor intransitive, probably cos they are solely human (no empirical interference in *that* crazy world) so they can break whatever rules they like.

Aristotle teaching Logic:

A - So Jesus was a prophet?
Man - Yes.
A - And he said he was the son of God?
Man - Yes.
A - And prophets speak the infallible word of God?
Man - Er, yes?
A - So you have faith that he was the son of God?
Man - Er......no.
A - Okay, two plates of aporia to table five, please.



Casby the rusty logician

p.s. Is (not)B[f] equivalent to D[f]? (Like fun it is)

Re: Meeple

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

D[f] would seem to be closer to B[not f] rather than not B[f]. There are some problems with either approach, though. Things that break. Logical inconsistencies. That kind of thing. Keeping D[f] and B[f] distinct seems to make that go away.

Classical logic definitely doesn't work too well. So, do you still beat your husband? ;-)

('Law of the excluded agnostic' -- I like that!)

Re: Meeple

[casby.livejournal.com]

Can't you just negate B and leave D out altogether?

Casby the exhausted ghost

p.s. My highest mark in Cambridge was for a Logic essay (surprisingly): "Define Equivalence classes". I got a 1st++! Still only got a 2.1 for the paper though, damn Plurals and Conditionals :0

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

f is a faith, which you've defined as a set of beliefs (subset of B), rather than a belief. What is your definition of "believe" for a set of beliefs?

Re:

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

This is a good question. The obvious answer would be to disbelieve all non members of the set and to believe all members. Rather, I would define this as believing all members of the subset, but saying exactly nothing about whether or not any beliefs outside the subset are believed in. Dually, the 'disbelief' function works the same way, saying nothing about beliefs outside the subset.

One interpretation might be that I may have the occasional belief here and there, but this set is not a subset of the beliefs of any religion I have come across. Again, dually, I may have a set of disbeliefs, but no subset that overlaps an entire well-defined religion.

PS: I read your LJ and some of your web site and found it interesting. I particularly liked your Pagan hierarchy. :) I have friended you -- I hope you don't mind!

PPS: If you have understood the intent of my 'religion definition', it should be clear enough that I am not against any religion, nor am I a supporter of any either. I am interested in religion generally, however, without restriction to the mainstream.

Re:

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

In that case you both believe and disbelieve the "empty faith". I think that's a member of F, isn't it?

Re:

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

No -- I both don't believe and don't disbelieve the empty faith. (B[f] doesn't equal not D[f], so this isn't equivalent to the way you put it). Which is safe enough, I think.

Hmmm... the idea of an empty faith is interesting, though, all the same...

Re:

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

I said 'subset' a few times when I really meant 'superset'. Whoops -- it was late!