This tells me that you donât understand the logic of the problem. The Guruâs statement does not âonly [âŚ] provide a moment to beginâ, it provides crucial information that makes a logical deduction possible that was impossible before (in the proof by mathematical induction, her statement provides the base case).
Again, take the situation of 2 islanders who donât know their eye color, but are familiar with this problem. Without the guru telling them that she sees at least one islander with some eye color, neither islander can deduce his eye color. Unless when you say they âalready knew the puzzleâ you really mean they âalready possessed the information that the Guru providesâ.
EDIT: alternatively, replace the Guruâs statement with, âBegin deducing your eye color now!â If the Guru had said that, no one could deduce their eye color.
Donât reintroduce your blindness on that one too. Again, it is irrelevant that the syllogism part of your proposal works. Other syllogisms work even better.
James, it looks like your position is based on the possibility that someone can logically deduce the color of their eyes based solely on the color of the eyes of the people around them. Is that right?
OK, James. Not like itâs been half of the discussion for 10+ pages now or anything. Not like youâve provided a whole lot of awfully confident objections in your last few posts to an argument you âdonât rememberâ and arenât interested in discussing. Not like your interest faded when you were backed into acknowledging that your best argument is that it might be possible for a person to deduce their eye color by looking at a group of other people with eyes.
And âitâs OKâ that we both know that you arenât going to change your story one iota regardless of anything said. It isnât like we havenât been through that story for 20 pages before. It isnât like this new puzzle is going down a different path. And it isnât like you would ever be able to actually prove what it requires you to prove.
Nor do I need to prove that, since thatâs not my claim (unlike how your claim is actually that just looking at a group of people will give someone sufficient information to deduce their own eye color). In both cases, itâs the situation and the additional premises provided by the Guru/Master that make the deduction possible.
I tried to get James to discuss the Blue Eye problem privately way back, but he stopped replying. Which is just to say, Iâm to blame for this disruption.
Iâm having fun. Maybe if you developed a strong opinion about the Blue Eye problem or the Master Logician problem, youâd have fun too!
Shove it up your ass, wuss. You hide then try to jump in to make big of yourself. Then jump away again, never facing reality. Get over your insecurity and get off your pretentious high horse. Be man enough to just be part of the fun and you wonât trigger so much lack of it.
It dawned on me that you are making the same mistake as Newton and a great many science philosophers ever since. Newton heard about the idea of a âgravity forceâ, from Hooke I think it was. If the force called gravity was real, a certain reasoning would follow, a syllogism of logic. He then made measurements to verify the reasoning. Because his measurements turned out to substantiate the reasoning that stemmed from the idea of a gravity force, it became scientific LAW that gravity was due to the âforce of gravityâ. Most people today still believe in that force of gravity because âit is provenâ.
But then later Einstein comes along and proposes the idea of Relativity. Einstein explains that the âforce of gravityâ supposedly reaching out to affect things at a distance doesnât really make much sense and what makes better sense is the idea that time and distance are merely relative to an observer. From that, the effect of gravity can be logically explained as a âwarping of spacetimeâ rather than a âforce of gravityâ. Again working out the logic, the syllogism, based upon the assumption of warping rather than forcing, a proposed âtheoryâ (rather than âlawâ) is formed. Measurements are made that verify that the warping is even more accurate than the forcing. Einstein takes the forefront being the genius and âFather of Modern Physicsâ, putting Newton down.
In both cases, an assumption was made, logic was constructed, and measurements were made to confirm that the priori assumption was true. And in both cases, their assumptions turned out to actually be false. There is no gravity force, nether is spacetime warped.
You are doing that exact same thing with those puzzles. You begin with âif we assume that ⌠then make this syllogism ⌠then we get a result that solves the puzzle. Therefore the assumption must have been true.â
That video that I showed spoke of the same issue, just because your theory (assumptions and following logic) matches the âpuzzle constrictionsâ doesnât mean that your theory is correct. This is something that science has encountered enough to be very aware of at this time. Thus they demand âfalsifiabilityâ, requiring that nothing counter could possibly be true. And that is what I am requiring of you in those puzzles, because I can already see possible counter true theories to the ones you propose.
If P â Q
Q
therefore P petitio principii
All I am really doing is demanding that you be modern-day scientific in your method.
âŚand I think that Iâll make a separate thread for this.