近幾年唯一一隻有深度既PC-Game：Assassin's Creed系列入面
Order of Assassins 既訓言：
"Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted."
聽落都幾有氣勢
但兩句均內含誖論
先講"Nothing is True"
in predicate logic, this sentence is equivalent to
(x)(Gx⊃~Tx)
where Gx: x is a thing, Tx: x is true
Now, think about that whether "Nothing is True" belongs to the collection
{ x | Gx }
That is think about whether "Nothing is True" is a thing.
If it does , then "Nothing is True" is not true, that is false.
then we have
~(x)(Gx⊃~Tx)
Contradiction occurs
So, "Nothing is True" doesn't belong to the collection
{ x | Gx }
But it sounds weird......
Think More......
問題係，Nothing is True，指緊既係咩野？！
要符合咩條件先算得上係你講既「A thing」
呢到，可以用幾個鐘頭去思考
好，去到「Everything is Permitted」
原理差唔多，用Predicate Logic去睇：
(x)(Gx⊃Px)
where Gx: x is a thing, Px: x is permitted
Then ""Everything is Permitted" is false" is permitted!
then...we have
~(x)(Gx⊃Px)
x_x...contradiction
其實呢種爛鬼懶係玄妙既句子好多時......都係反面教材.....
但俾著我，我會點反駁上高句說話？
我會話：
Suppose domain of discourse of the quantifier in
(x)(Gx⊃Px)
is S
Then we should admit, in common sense, that
""Everything is Permitted" is false" ∉ S
That is
""Everything is Permitted" is false" is not included in our saying.
咁講就好似好合理！
歡迎合理既辯駁^.^
聽完之後一頭霧水既朋友可以去Google 下"Predicate Logic and Proofs"
仲有，唔好攞D 歷史呀宗教呀諸如此類既野作論證- -
我唔想係到講歷史宗教
3 則留言:
你想得大多了,
小心鑽牛角尖!
生活是親身去體驗,
不用和理論去糾纏!
哈哈
但有時先進既謊言要用到理論去拆解
我會放鬆D架啦......^.^
good used of logic system, however talking a step back, when it says nothing is true, that include logic itself, so you logically you cannot use any logic system to analysis the phase and everything is permitted that include paradox to exist since it is part of everything, the phase works better when you combine it with the full version.
"Where other men blindly follow the truth, remember nothing is true. Where other men are limited, by morality or law, remember everything is permitted."
translate nicely into Buddhist teaching as well as Taoist which are also two huge schools of philosophy.
發佈留言