Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 26, 2022 19:45:57 GMT
The idea is cool, but it's limited. What an idea is it? If you know logic, it shouldn't have any problem. We need to write down a formula of implications firstly:
Even this formula (1) makes us closer to the answer. So, what do we need to know whether p makes sense, or not? All we have to say that:
let's formalize it:
So, what does this rule mean? This mean that only from a meaningful proposition no false propositions cannot be entailed. But the whole formula p q might be false. It happens if p is empty. But any empty proposition is funny, i.e. meaningless. Considering this fact the previous rule can be rewritten into this:
I guess that this rule can be understood without any logic. The main essence of it reads: 'there's nothing meaningless or nonsense that can be a foundation for rational thinking'. So, let's say if as detectives we'd counted on false or nonsense clues, then there wouldn't be anything sane in our investigation. Only sane detectives use and trust to true or verified info, and only the trustful info can be used to solve cases.
There are some objections to this theory, but I want to bring just one of them. What as detectives we're just lucky, and even having meaningless or gibberish facts we would solve a case? I'd say that it's not impossible, but according to this formula a better detective is trying to falsify his own theories, rather than finding every new justification for his own suggestion. I mean is better to criticize yourself, than to find new and new approval theories. So, this is what that detective has to do to be better. And if he doesn't do anything like this - he's just a lucky one, and even if we had a chance to solve cases, such a method of him is untrusted. This only can be said that a detective must be wiser.
p ⊢ q
Even this formula (1) makes us closer to the answer. So, what do we need to know whether p makes sense, or not? All we have to say that:
"p makes sense" 'if and only if' "it's indeed possible that not in every case when p is true, q is true"
let's formalize it:
"p makes sense" ≡ □p & [¬∃q(p ⊢ ¬q)]
So, what does this rule mean? This mean that only from a meaningful proposition no false propositions cannot be entailed. But the whole formula p q might be false. It happens if p is empty. But any empty proposition is funny, i.e. meaningless. Considering this fact the previous rule can be rewritten into this:
"p doesn't make sense" ≡ [∀p ≡ (p v ¬p)]
I guess that this rule can be understood without any logic. The main essence of it reads: 'there's nothing meaningless or nonsense that can be a foundation for rational thinking'. So, let's say if as detectives we'd counted on false or nonsense clues, then there wouldn't be anything sane in our investigation. Only sane detectives use and trust to true or verified info, and only the trustful info can be used to solve cases.
There are some objections to this theory, but I want to bring just one of them. What as detectives we're just lucky, and even having meaningless or gibberish facts we would solve a case? I'd say that it's not impossible, but according to this formula a better detective is trying to falsify his own theories, rather than finding every new justification for his own suggestion. I mean is better to criticize yourself, than to find new and new approval theories. So, this is what that detective has to do to be better. And if he doesn't do anything like this - he's just a lucky one, and even if we had a chance to solve cases, such a method of him is untrusted. This only can be said that a detective must be wiser.