Taim and Others

[Trib4l]

Luckers of the White Ajah.

[Bob T Dwarf]

No.

 

What I'm saying is that we do not know A, therefore all possibilities remain open.

 

What you seem to be saying is that we know A when in fact we don't. Others have been saying that while we don't know A, it doesn't really matter, because the answer could only be B.

[RobertAlexWillis]

Well, empirically its impossible to prove or disprove anything conclusively, because we might all be crazy.

 

Therefore, never A, there is no B, and C is my sister, so you'd all better stay away.

 

:D

[Bob T Dwarf]

Now THAT I can buy wholeheartedly. :lol:

[Luckers]

Holy crap ... someone else has actually studied logic instead assuming they know what it is.

 

So THAT's why we agree alot.

 

Lol. Yeah, i know lots of pretentious, and wanky crap. Witness;-

 

What I'm saying is that we do not know A, therefore all possibilities remain open.

 

This is whats called an unassosiated dismissal. Firstly, for a theory to be viable, it must be deductively valid. Then it can be concidered in terms of its factual evidence. Essentially the conclusion must be supported by the premise. i.e. If A is true, then for it to be a deductively valid it must be inherent from that truth that B is therefore true.

 

Our theories are individualized based on that. We find a deductive link, and then have built theories based on that. For instance (and im pulling this one out of no where);-

 

1. If Taim ordered the Trollocs, then he is chosen.

2. Taim ordered the Trollocs.

3. Therefore he is chosen.

 

This is a deductively valid modus tollens, and therefore a viable theory. We then go to offer our reasons as to why we think that Taim ordered the trollocs. It is case specific.

 

This form of logic is not suggesting a fact, its suggesting a theory and a sequence. An unassosiated dismissal is to say that it is not a fact, therefore in its entirety it is not true. It is the construction of a theory that we are attempting. A plausible explanation for the facts given. You seek, following that, merely to dismiss out of the definition of 'know'. This is a viable examination in a seperate sense, but not in the process of constructing unverefiable theories... the premise can be supported, but it can never be proven, so it becomes a pointless endevour. Everything is dissmissable, not by facts, but by the unnassosiated variable...

 

So, we suggest a possiblity, and rather then saying 'that can't be the case because of this' you have been saying 'that cant be the case because that is unknowable', and even worse 'that cant be the case, because that is unkowable, therefore mine must be true'. Which is what I meant when i said you have been saying 'we do not know A, therefore B'.

 

And yes, you have been doing it.

[Bob T Dwarf]

1. If Taim ordered the Trollocs, then he is chosen.

2. Taim ordered the Trollocs.

3. Therefore he is chosen.

 

A decent illustrative example. I'll use it in my discussion below.

 

Stated another way, that boils down to: If a theory is testable, it qualifies as a hypothesis, and if the hypothesis passes the tests, it can be considered as proven, and therefore fact.

 

Part of the problem we have here is a lack of hypotheses. We have an overabundance of theories, but precious few of those theories are actually testable. Without a definitive way to test it, "If Taim ordered the Trollocs, then Taim is Chosen.", is nothing more than unprovable speculation. If it fails the first test - the test of being testable - then there is no need to go further. It is, in fact, impossible to go further. And, if we don't limit ourselves to those things which are testable, all we really have is daydreams.

 

And, one persons daydream is as valid as anyone else's.

 

In the specific case of, "If Taim ordered the Trollocs, then Taim is Chosen", is a premise that is, as of this time, unverifiable. The books are simply too sparse on the details of Taim's activities. The premise may or may not have some degree of plausibilty depending on your overall beliefs about Taim, but it is unverifiable. Thus it is only theory, and all arguments presented in its defense are only speculation.

 

Now, based on information contained in the books, it is possible to present, "If Semirhage is masquerading as Tuon's Truthspeaker, Anath, then she has to have awakened and become active shortly before or at about the time when "The Eye of the World" begins.", as a hypothesis. It's a testable statement. There is sufficient detail in the books to provide an answer.

 

Reasonability isn't proof. Plausibilty isn't proof. Only testing verifies facts.

[Luckers]

Thats the point of a theory, it takes suggestive points in constructing a plausible event. It uses what we do know to construct a viable explanation. You are using what we don't know to construct an unviable denial. Religions have been doing the same thing for years 'you cannot explain this, therefore god.'

 

The reality of a modus tollens is not to demonstrate fact, its to suggest a viable explanation of events as we know them.

 

And, one persons daydream is as valid as anyone else's.

 

Not so. If one persons suggestion is backed by evidence, then that theory attains more viability then another. That is the point of the modus tollens.

 

In the specific case of, "If Taim ordered the Trollocs, then Taim is Chosen", is a premise that is, as of this time, unverifiable.

 

Indeed. So then what you do is look at what evidence there is, and try and work a viable theory from it. The closer the evidence supports you theory, the more viable it is as a potential explanation. Your argument that 'you can't prove it absolutely, therefore im dissmissing it' is invalid. Nothing can be proven to that extent. It is viable to suggest explanation based on verefiable evidence.

 

Reasonability isn't proof. Plausibilty isn't proof. Only testing verifies facts.

 

Reasonability and plausibility go to theorisation, proof is impossible.

[Bob T Dwarf]

No, proof is possible. It just takes more work.

 

Newton proved gravity exists. Galileo ( or was it Copernicus? ) proved that the Earth orbits the Sun. The statement: "Birgitte can outshoot Valan Luca." is provable in the context of WOT.

 

I'm really at a loss to understand your fascination with unprovable theories.

 

Using "modus tollens", our ancestors convinced themselves for a very long time that the world was flat. And, they had many wonderfully constructed, entirely "modus tollens" deduced "proofs" of that flatness with which they would gleefully beat all doubters soundly about the head and shoulders.

 

It is possible, using your "modus tollens" to construct any number of equally plausible but mutually exclusive theories. There are approximately 117 pages of such theories and the plausible justifications and proofs for them in the Asmo thread.

 

How far has all that tailchasing gotten us?

 

All of those mutually exclusive theories in those 117 pages utilize some variation of "modus tollens". Each of them constitute a tautology because none of them extends our understanding of what happened. None imparts any real clarity.

[Luckers]

No actually proof is impossible because truth is unatainable. What people like Galileo takes to be proof is merely an illusion created by consistancy of effect. Its viable in progression, and thats all that matters in the long term... i can't explain this to you. Read Nieztsche or Baulldriard or Barthes, they explain it much more succinctly.

 

It is possible, using your "modus tollens" to construct any number of equally plausible but mutually exclusive theories. There are approximately 117 pages of such theories and the plausible justifications for them in the Asmo thread. .

 

Modus tollens are not entire theories, it is the process by which theories are understood to be viable. None of yours have been modus tollens, incidently. For a modus tollens to be viable, all it needs is for the premise to support the conclusion, right or wrong does not matter in concluding deductive validity. Yes, they can absolutely be mutually exclusive.

 

It is merely the first step in trying to come up with a viable explanation. Once deductive validity is confirmed, then you can continue in the examination fo the evidence suggested for the theory.

 

Specifically you look at:

1. Does the evidence implicate what you suggest it does.

2. Is the evidence verefiable.

3. Is there any contradictory.

 

Finally you settle on that which is the most plausible theory, and wait for more information.

 

Incidently ive as yet to see a deductively valid theory suggested by you.

 

I'm really at a loss to understand your fascination with unprovable theories.

 

Firstly, we know. Your inability to percieve things is near legened. Secondly, they are unprovable, but they arn't unsupportable. That is the nature of theories.

 

How far has all that tailchasing gotten us?

 

It's gotten us quite far. The point of theorising and the point of logic are both directed at questions that have no empirical proof (which is not the same as proof, but again that would take too long to explain, and is in truth quite inconsiquential) It is the examination of that which is the least wrong, as shown by a careful series of logical deductions based on viable evidence.

 

So you have two basis. You have evidence. Things which happened (the sky is blue, light refracts in water) and then you have guesses based on that (the referaction of light in the water in the atmosphere is what causes the sky to be blue). Logic is the rules the govern how those gueses are made, and its mathematically based, not based on feelings.

 

All of those mutually exclusive theories in those 117 pages utilize some variation of "modus tollens". Each of them constitute a tautology because none of them imparts any clarity.

 

Actually no, i've seen only 15 deductively valid theories on the killing of Asmodean. The rest are fallacious... they are not modus tollens. Therein is the main use of modus tollens as a conceptual tool, it allows you to narrow theories to those seen.

 

Next step, of those 15, i'd say only four theories contain factual validity. Then we look at the one the fits most securely with the evidence we have, and has the least against it, and Graendal is the logical answer.

 

This is a matter of mathematics... logic is not what feels right, or even what is right, it is the matter of what is the least wrong. Logic dictates that Graendal killed Asmodean... this doesn't mean she did, its just that she is the most logical culprit, as proved mathematically by theoretical constructs such as the modus tollens.

[dimmu666]

omg you crazyassed logical ppl! You're using philosophy shiat that i'm learning in Theory of Knowledge right now lol. Um i think taim is an asshole. fullstop. Theres no point arguing whether or not hes chosen, if hes an asshole, hes as good as any chosen. And which chosen has a whole band of ashaman army? hes gonna do some real damage.

i'll throw in a retarded tautology

Whatever happens, happens. There, D Adams ultimate answer to the universe and everything, it proves you're all wrong! i duno how but it does!

[Luckers]

Reality, Knowledge and Ethics were probably the most interesting philosophy course i did. After that it gets boring--wait till you get to Beauty and Art... Bah!

 

And Taim is obviously a Rabbit hole. That goes without saying.

[Bob T Dwarf]

No actually proof is impossible because truth is unatainable.

 

Now, there is a statement that contains the seed of its own destruction:

 

1. If truth is unattainable, then the statement that "proof is impossible because truth is unattainable", is untrue.

 

2. 1 + 1 = 2 ( unless the ones are rabbits, in which case, 1 + 1 = ~3946 ). For which read: "proof is impossible."

 

3. Truth is attainable. ( For which read: "truth is unattainable is untrue." )

 

Modus tollens applied in this way is itself a tautology. It can be used to "prove" its own invalidity as a logical method.

 

Talk about chasing your tail. Modus tollens can take us so far down the rabbit hole that we're in danger of supplanting the Mad Hatter.

 

Mathematically, you prove a theorem by working the problem in both directions.

 

1. 3 - 2 = 1 if, and only if, 1 + 2 = 3.

2. 1 + 2 = 3

3. 3 - 2 = 1

 

Applying that method of provability to the quoted statement:

 

1. "Proof is impossible because truth is unattainable", is proven if, and only if "Truth is unattainable because proof is impossible."

 

2. 1 + 2 != 3 because 3 - 2 cannot be proven to equal anything specific.

 

3. Well, there is no three, because 1 + 2 does equal 3, and 3 - 2 does equal 1.

 

The original premise has disproven itself. Therefore, the premise that "proof is impossible" is disproven, and, by extension, so has the premise that "truth is unattainable" been disproven because both theories rely exclusively on each other for support.

 

By further extension, no theory ( proof is impossible ) can be proven by another theory ( truth is unattainable ). No matter how logical or beautifully constructed any theorem may be, it cannot be used to prove another theorem. All such compound theories lack sufficient structure to stand on their own. They are nothing but pretty wallpaper pretending to be a wall with no structure supporting them.

 

[EDIT] For those who have already read this. Deductive reasoning, when properly applied, IS an entirely valid way to arrive at reasonable conclusions. But, only if it is properly and carefully applied.

 

Step 2 of the deductive process ALWAYS involves a proof. Something that is independently verifiable, and entirely reproducible. It cannot simply be a corollary or secondary theorem. If you go that route, you merely end up with a compound theory. A body of pure conjecture without any skeleton of fact or even hypothesis to give it substance or structure.

[Luckers]

Ok Bob, your making me repeat stuff, and thats an annoyance. I'll deal with you if your gonna be intelligent, but if your gonna fall into semantics then i'm done.

 

Specifically.

 

Quote:

No actually proof is impossible because truth is unatainable.

 

 

Now, there is a statement that contains the seed of its own destruction:

 

1. If truth is unattainable, then the statement that "proof is impossible because truth is unattainable", is untrue.

 

Oh brilliant. Why didn't the philosophers of the last thousand years think of that. Oh wait, they did. You see if you'd actually read what i wrote, you'd realise i stated that as a mere curiosity.

 

What people like Galileo takes to be proof is merely an illusion created by consistancy of effect. Its viable in progression, and thats all that matters in the long term... i can't explain this to you. Read Nieztsche or Baulldriard or Barthes, they explain it much more succinctly.

 

Did it occur to you, that in my flippancy i wasn't touching on anything. Do as i suggest and actually read some of those theorists. You could try Kant as well. I'm not truly irritated at you for this part--i mean your response was an examination of semantics to the worst degree, but thats ignorable. What you then did was try to join it to the modus tollens, as if that were in some what significant. After i said:

 

Modus tollens are not entire theories, it is the process by which theories are understood to be viable.

 

The truth of a modus tollens is irrelevent. I know this is difficult to a mind unused to complexity, but try to keep up. A modus tollens is device that exists solely to limit and control the way in which leaps in deductive reasoning are made. They exists purely to judge the jump of logic made between the premise and the conclusion.

 

Mathematically, you prove a theorem by working the problem in both directions.

 

1. 3 - 2 = 1 if, and only if, 1 + 2 = 3.

2. 1 + 2 = 3

3. 3 - 2 = 1

 

Irrelevant, but nevertheless a true modus tollens.

 

1. If 3 - 2 = 1, then 1 + 2 = 3

2. 3 - 2 = 1.

3. Therefore 1 + 2 = 3.

 

Thats the true form, though it makes little difference. This form, incidently, makes no efforts to prove that 3 - 2 = 1, it is saying only that, if it is the case, then 1 + 2 = 3 is also the case.

 

Applying that method of provability to the quoted statement:

 

1. "Proof is impossible because truth is unattainable", is proven if, and only if "Truth is unattainable because proof is impossible."

 

2. 1 + 2 != 3 because 3 - 2 cannot be proven to equal anything specific.

 

3. Well, there is no three, because 1 + 2 does equal 3, and 3 - 2 does equal 1.

 

Which is exactly what you do in a majority of your theories, and is why we dislike them.

 

Oh, and i know you think you've made a brilliant point. Perhaps now you'll actually read what i wrote rather then stealing something you think you can use to attack me and using it out of context. The lack of existance in absolute truth is a philosophical concept, and the theory behind it does cover mathematical truths, but i am not going to explain it to you, because A) it would take a year and B) I'd do it badly, and i dont believe in misinforming people.

 

Modus Tollens cannot be applied to such an assertion. It is not making a deductive leap between two concepts.

 

Lets address your need for proof. This is where your failing to understand the purpose of a modus tollens, it doesn't exist to give proof, it exists purely to show wether a theory based on factual evidence is deductively valid. It does nothing to show proof. In the question of theories which are at the moment unprovable it shows which should be thrown out as illogical, and which should not.

 

The original premise has disproven itself. Therefore, the premise that "proof is impossible" is disproven, and, by extension, so has the premise that "truth is unattainable" been disproven because both theories rely exclusively on each other for support.

 

Oh brilliant work Dr. Bob.

 

*laughs snidely*

 

Note how nasty i've become... sorry about that, i have little time for fools who dont read what i write when constructing responses to me.

 

By further extension, no theory ( proof is impossible ) can be proven by another theory ( truth is unattainable ). No matter how logical or beautifully constructed any theorem may be, it cannot be used to prove another theorem. All such compound theories lack sufficient structure to stand on their own. They are nothing but pretty wallpaper pretending to be a wall with no structure supporting them.

 

[EDIT] For those who have already read this. Deductive reasoning, when properly applied, IS an entirely valid way to arrive at reasonable conclusions. But, only if it is properly and carefully applied.

 

Step 2 of the deductive process ALWAYS involves a proof. Something that is independently verifiable, and entirely reproducible. It cannot simply be a corollary or secondary theorem. If you go that route, you merely end up with a compound theory. A body of pure conjecture without any skeleton of fact or even hypothesis to give it substance or structure.

 

I love your declarations. I think you need to go back to school and actually larn what your talking about. Remember what Robert said of those that think they understand logic... you dont. Not even remotely.

[jkeaves]

Who knows where, who, or what orders Taim gets. I think RJ purposely put Taim in such a position to provide red herrings. We don't know yet what his status is or how much of his actions are coincidental (e.g. his red and black colors). All we really know for certain is that he is not a nice person and he is being a bad influence on some impressionable young men. Didn't anyone's mothers in Randland tell 'em to just say no to peer pressure?

[Simple Gleeman]

[EDIT] For those who have already read this. Deductive reasoning' date=' [i']when properly applied,[/i] IS an entirely valid way to arrive at reasonable conclusions. But, only if it is properly and carefully applied.

 

I didn't really bother reading it because you mathmatically argued against a philosophical concept, which is an example of deductive reasoning improperly applied.

 

See the problem with deductive reasoning is like your wallpaper analogy. You cannot definitivly prove anything. All your premises are based on other conclusions and eventually you get to a point where something has to be taken for granted.

[jkeaves]

Master Gleeman, the main problem with both of your arguments is that you two are arguing from two different and unstated positions. It isn't a matter of using mathematics to argue philsophical concepts. In fact, the best philosophical methodology is to be mathematical in process, viz., one statement logically follows the next. Even though philosophical works are written in English, they are supposed to be consistent. And how are these works such that they are inherently consistant? Well, you can be a foundationalist, a coherentist, a contextualist, or any other sort of "ist". The fact of the matter is that philosophers still think of mathematics as the prime example of argumentation, despite Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Some good, fairly accesible books on truth and the like are by Simon Blackburn.

Taim is a jackass, and let's leave it at that.

[stoneface]

Logic! The author sets the rules of the universe, so beware how you depend on logic. In the real world, an unknown (to us) does have a real answer. For example, which cup is the pea under? Place your bet, but the grifter has already dropped it on the ground. An author has no limits except the reader putting down the book.

 

Taim is definitely a red herring, but which possibility is going to be "true" (that is, in the next book)? After reading that RJ had stated that "Demandred is not Taim," I figured out that the solution was "Taim is not Taim." Everything held together textually, then I was informed of another RJ answer that "Demandred is not posing as Taim." Big difference. Has RJ been reading too many mysteries? Why didn't he "RAFO" that question? Now he must adequately explain the strong similarities between Demandred and Taim in A Memory of Light (hopefully without resorting to a cheap trick). Same thing with the discussion of Taim's DF versus Chosen vs. whatever status (no cheap tricks, please).

 

Well, that's why we are all waiting for AMoL!

[jkeaves]

Stoneface hit the ...stone on the ..er face. That is, the bottom line here is that this is RJ's baby, his rules. However solid our conclusions might be, he can turn around and, say, have Moraine be the Dark One. (I bet that would make Perrin feel a little awkward on walking in on her half-naked.) His fantasy world, his rules. But that doesn't stop the fun of trying to figure it out. After all, we still contemplate who killed Asmodean, even though we all know it was Bella in the Kitchen with the rope. ;-)

 

The only thing going against Stoneface's clever "Taim is not Taim" negation is that Bashier(sp) recognizes Taim as the one causing all the trouble in the borderlands as a false dragon. So, if Taim is not Taim, then he goes back quite a ways to try his hand at becoming a false dragon. RJ has himself quite a little wildcard.

[Bob T Dwarf]

jkeaves is the one of us that is stating how logic really works the most clearly and understandably, so I'll leave further explanations to him.

 

Just for the record:

 

modus tollens is a Latin term meaning "mode that denies." It is also sometimes referred to as "Proof by the contrapositive."

 

Applied in the context of one immediate question:

 

1. If "some" can be shown to mean only two, then Aginor and Balthamel are the only Forsaken awake and active in Randland at the end of "The Eye of the World.

2. "Some" cannot be shown to mean only two.

3. Therefore, Aginor and Balthamel are not the only Forsaken awake and active.

 

Applied to an old question:

 

1. If it can be shown that the author placed Graendal in the palace in Caemlyn at the time Asmodean was murdered, then she is a prime suspect in that murder.

2. It cannot be shown in anything Jordan has written to date that Graendal was anywhere near Caemlyn at the time of the murder.

3. Therefore, Graendal is not a suspect.

 

By extension:

 

1. If it can be shown that Jordan has explicitly provided any suspect in Asmodean's death with all three of: Motive; Means; Opportunity; then that suspect is undoubtedly the murderer.

2. It cannot be shown that Jordan has provided anyone with all three requirements.

3. Therefore, the murderer remains unknown.

 

Laying out arguments in this fashion does not confer correctness to the arguments. The layout merely shows that the arguments being advanced are entirely logical.

[rochaid]

except graendal was the one plotting with rahvin and lanfear in the beginning of the fires of heaven,so she does have reason to be there.

 

and it really is annoying when you just ignore points,as you seem to continuly when you cannot argue against them.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Lot's of characters have a wide variety of reasons for being there. Having a reason does not mean that they actually were there.

 

In Graendal's case she also had a couple of rather powerful reasons for not being there:

 

1. Rahvin had verbally posted, "All trespassers will be shot on sight." signs at the meeting in the prologue.

 

2. Jordan explicitly has her trying to meet with Moghehien on the day Asmo died.

 

Many things "could" be true. The person advancing any argument has the responsibilty of demonstrating that his or her argument is true. Thus, if you are firmly convinced that Graendal is the killer, simply find the evidence on the written page in anything that Jordan has written that mentions her as actually being there when Asmo died, and she moves to the head of the suspect list.

[jkeaves]

Thanks Bob T Dwarf...I think?

The idea behind using mathematical logic to argue philosophical points is really quite simple: logic makes your arguments as clear as possible. Many times an argument doesn't "win" because it is unclear and/or the reader assumes things other than what the writer had intended just because it wasn't clear.

 

Of course, whether we can know the truth of anything or whether logic can at all be used to argue philosophical points, is an entirely different matter than the one addressed here. But when one uses logic as Master Bob T Dwarf just showed with the Grendal case, it is easier to see what the exact argument is and what might be some weak point, as Rochaid did. See, all the logic does is help the argument process. If the premises are true, and the argument valid, then the answer is guarenteed. Rochaid, however, disagreed with Bob T Dwarf's 2nd Grendal premise. So, he claims Bob T Dwarf's argument isn't sound due to a false premise. But it is clear. That's the main point. A quick google or wikipedia search on "sentential logic", "predicate logic", "modal logic", and "fuzzy logic" should bring up enough information to be getting on with.

[rochaid]

i was not saying she is a prime suspect,(although i believe she is)i was just saying that she does have reason to be there,so she cannot be elimanated as a suspect.

[Bob T Dwarf]

Here's another one:

 

1. If it can be shown that the Forsaken can, in all cases, keep themselves from being damaged by mundane weapons, then Bashere cannot be the killer.

2. It cannot be shown that the Forsaken have that capability. When we last see Semirhage, who had been actively wielding the power and was fully alert and focused at the time, she is standing with Min's knife sticking out of her shoulder.

3. Therefore, Bashere could have killed Asmodean.

[Bob T Dwarf]

rochaid -

 

She cannot be eliminated on the basis of lack of motive. She can, and that is what I've attempted to do, be eliminated on the basis of lack of opportunity. If she wasn't there she can't be a suspect.

 

Prove she was there and she becomes one.