Sociopath Community

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

 

If most planets do not have an atmosphere, it is unlikely that we live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Do you now see why your statement is logically incorrect? This is a chance for you to learn.

 

You're not quite there yet because you haven't properly built equivalency. 

Check out On Singularities and Simulations by Dainton, he modifies Bostroms syllogism and builds a pretty solid equivalency. I have no doubt something similar to Daintons approach can be done to my hypothesis. If you don't have a university email or access to research libraries just let me know, I can pull the pdf for you.

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

lol ikr. That prolly includes a punnett square or smthg.

The average person doesn't care enough about whether or not angels or aliens made us, or whether or not we're just a brain in a vat, or a fart in some god's perfect trousers to pull out a punnett square and start doing math to tryta prove or disprove it.

Even if it were applied to demographics research or genetics, or smthg that's somewhat interesting, most of us on this forum are too lazy to bother.

@ Alice, this thread would be huge if you could demonstrate your probability theories using a hypothetical or an actual horse race. i.e. how to win money by betting on said horse race  ;D

Xena said: 

 You told Major Major that he's defensive about his beliefs, implying that they're incorrect. 

I asked him directly if he believes that aliens could have created us, and he responded with a firm no.

You responded the same way to me, and my beliefs are much more fluid, as I've already stated a number of times. Maybe yes, maybe no, Idc.

 You are an actual retarded person. Go back and read what I wrote, not what the little voices in your head were saying.

I never said anything about your beliefs, I added facts where you had made up numbers off the top of your head.

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

 

If most planets do not have an atmosphere, it is unlikely that we live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Do you now see why your statement is logically incorrect? This is a chance for you to learn.

 

You're not quite there yet because you haven't properly built equivalency. 

Check out On Singularities and Simulations by Dainton, he modifies Bostroms syllogism and builds a pretty solid equivalency. I have no doubt something similar to Daintons approach can be done to my hypothesis. If you don't have a university email or access to research libraries just let me know, I can pull the pdf for you.

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

 Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Yes, without the prior knowledge that in order to live we need an atmosphere.

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

Also yes.

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

If most planets do not have an atmosphere, it is unlikely that we live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Do you now see why your statement is logically incorrect? This is a chance for you to learn.

You're not quite there yet because you haven't properly built equivalency. 

Check out On Singularities and Simulations by Dainton, he modifies Bostroms syllogism and builds a pretty solid equivalency. I have no doubt something similar to Daintons approach can be done to my hypothesis. If you don't have a university email or access to research libraries just let me know, I can pull the pdf for you.

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Then continue to compare dissimilar statements. 

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

No

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

 Yes

Xena said: 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

lol ikr. That prolly includes a punnett square or smthg.

The average person doesn't care enough about whether or not angels or aliens made us, or whether or not we're just a brain in a vat, or a fart in some god's perfect trousers to pull out a punnett square and start doing math to tryta prove or disprove it.

Even if it were applied to demographics research or genetics, or smthg that's somewhat interesting, most of us on this forum are too lazy to bother.

 

@ Alice, this thread would be huge if you could demonstrate your probability theories using a hypothetical or an actual horse race. i.e. how to win money by betting on said horse race  ;D

user22212 said: 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

If most planets do not have an atmosphere, it is unlikely that we live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Do you now see why your statement is logically incorrect? This is a chance for you to learn.

You're not quite there yet because you haven't properly built equivalency. 

Check out On Singularities and Simulations by Dainton, he modifies Bostroms syllogism and builds a pretty solid equivalency. I have no doubt something similar to Daintons approach can be done to my hypothesis. If you don't have a university email or access to research libraries just let me know, I can pull the pdf for you.

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

 Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

Yes, without the prior knowledge that in order to live we need an atmosphere.

Indeed, if we treat the proposition as a stand alone statement it definitely can be considered true. 

I'm giving him the benefit of prior knowledge given the current debate around the implied proposition that follows P3 involves prior knowledge - that is falsehood of P1 and P2 and P3 as true. 

PalePeach said: 

Xena said: 

 You told Major Major that he's defensive about his beliefs, implying that they're incorrect. 

I asked him directly if he believes that aliens could have created us, and he responded with a firm no.

You responded the same way to me, and my beliefs are much more fluid, as I've already stated a number of times. Maybe yes, maybe no, Idc.

 You are an actual retarded person. Go back and read what I wrote, not what the little voices in your head were saying.

I never said anything about your beliefs, I added facts where you had made up numbers off the top of your head.

So now you believe there are voices in my head? lolololol

You are a piece of work.

There are no absolute facts when it comes to reading the fossil record. It's a work in progress.

I said:

AT LEAST THREE, WHILE SOME SAY AS MANY AS TWENTY EXTINCTION EVENTS. IT'S ALL SUBJECT TO INTERPRETATION.

You most definitely are reading selectively.

Xena: the sunset is some neat shades of pink and orange and... is that purple? Idc. It's pretty. Let's play some hippie music and have a good time with this.

Peach: OMFG U ARE SO STUPID. IT'S FUCKING VERMILLION!! AND TANGERINE AND MAUVE DAMN YOU YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

Xena: lol y u mad? And are you sure that's rlly vermillion, mauve and whatever? Different people have different names for it. And some people even see it differently bc they're farther north or south.

Peach: GAH U ARE SUCH A NARCISSIST AND A SCHIZOPHRENIC AND YOU'RE HEARING VOICES AND U CAN'T READ.

For real. You obviously have a problem with me, and it's not about some factoid you read in a textbook.

Nobody gets that worked up about archaeology lol

Again, what's your real problem with me, kid?

AliceInWonderland said: 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

If most planets do not have an atmosphere, it is unlikely that we live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Do you now see why your statement is logically incorrect? This is a chance for you to learn.

You're not quite there yet because you haven't properly built equivalency. 

Check out On Singularities and Simulations by Dainton, he modifies Bostroms syllogism and builds a pretty solid equivalency. I have no doubt something similar to Daintons approach can be done to my hypothesis. If you don't have a university email or access to research libraries just let me know, I can pull the pdf for you.

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

 

Xena said: 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

@ Alice, this thread would be huge if you could demonstrate your probability theories using a hypothetical or an actual horse race. i.e. how to win money by betting on said horse race  ;D

 Hehe. Humour doesn't hold up to logic chopping, does it?

Hint: It's funny because it's absurd  :D

Xena said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

If most planets do not have an atmosphere, it is unlikely that we live on a planet with an atmosphere.

Do you now see why your statement is logically incorrect? This is a chance for you to learn.

You're not quite there yet because you haven't properly built equivalency. 

Check out On Singularities and Simulations by Dainton, he modifies Bostroms syllogism and builds a pretty solid equivalency. I have no doubt something similar to Daintons approach can be done to my hypothesis. If you don't have a university email or access to research libraries just let me know, I can pull the pdf for you.

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

Then continue to compare dissimilar statements. 

Does it logically follow from "most planets do not have an atmosphere" that we likely live on a planet without an atmosphere?

No

Does it logically follow from "most intelligent species are created by other intelligences" that we likely were created by an intelligence?

 Yes

 

Xena said: 

Major Major said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

 

Logical equivalency...? I don't have time for snobbish nonsense.

 

 

@ Alice, this thread would be huge if you could demonstrate your probability theories using a hypothetical or an actual horse race. i.e. how to win money by betting on said horse race  ;D

 

 Hehe. Humour doesn't hold up to logic chopping, does it?

Hint: It's funny because it's absurd  :D

Hint: Google punnett square

lol I know what a punnett square is.

I studied a questionable use of it to justify Ethical Egoism in second year ethics, as well as Gregor Mendel's famous pea plants in first year anthro, thx.

Again. It was a joke.

I was riffing on the srsnss of this thread  xP