Just say you have nothing decent to respond with and leave it at that

Right, then we would know whether it is true or false—not that it must be among those two options, that it is true or it is false. We already know the latter. Only which of the two options is unknown.

If the state of nullness can be rectified (replaced with an actual value), then it would be possible to resolve the proposition to a non-unknown value - but not until then.

It literally says:

> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.

> but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false

The text explicitly states the opposite of that.

"NULL = 1" --> Unknown

> That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.

Incorrect.

> Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.

Question: have you ever written any tests in school?

Yeah, I’m not a programmer, but if I am following correctly, then null = true or false. That is, it still has to be true or false, and it cannot be true and false or not true and not false.

Meaning, I’m right. We might not know the answer, but it has to be true or false. It can’t be both or neither.

> Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”.

Ah ok....well, I haven't changed the definition of true and false....set theory as implemented in databases is probably the easiest way to understand it:

https://modern-sql.com/concept/three-valued-logic

> Comparisons to null > > The SQL null value basically means “could be anything”. It is therefore impossible to tell whether a comparison to null is true or false. That’s where the third logical value, unknown, comes in. Unknown means “true or false, depending on the null values”. > > The result of each of the following comparisons is therefore unknown > > NULL = 1
> NULL <> 1
> NULL > 1
> NULL = NULL
> > Nothing equals null. Not even null equals null because each null could be different.

I'm just imagining a whole lot of redditors who are actually caterpillars going "you bastard!"

You're absolutely right. I have consciously blended Daoism and Zen. I have never been a member of a Daoist group. And all I have ever done is read Laozi and Zhuangzi. However, I had quite the mystical experience one day that lasted for more than two years. That came directly from reading Laozi. But, the only explanation I could find for what happened to me came straight out of Zen. Very perceptive on your part. Not too long ago I shifted back toward Daoism, but only the Laozi/Zhuangzi version. I couldn't care less about Internal Alchemy and all that. I studied with a Daoist priest and after two days I left because it was nothing like what I was after. It was then that I started looking at Zen.

Lol, no. We do know that. I either have a dog or I do not have a dog. What other answer could there possibly be?

Think about it:

(1) I have a dog;

(2) I do not have a dog; or

(3) ???.

What possibly could be your third option?

False, WE do not know that.

Your dog statement cannot be evaluated without context. We can infer that context from a stated purpose, knowledge, or assumptions about one or both, but absent that it's just a set of meaningless symbols or sounds.

Yeah, but I am not even sure what you mean by that lol.

Did you note this part: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality""?

It simply means going ahead of things. 99% of reddit is this kind or turdy turd.

I’ve been thinking about this, and I think what you’ve essentially done is changed the definition of true and false. That is, equivocation. Under your definition, true ≠ not false and false ≠ not true, leaving room for a third option, which isn’t possible if true = not false and false = not true.

It just means whether it’s true or false is not known, but we still know it has to be one or the other.

What do you think ‘begs the question’ means?

And the state of not knowing which is called "indeterminate" which is the result of a vague predicate. How does your logical system handle indeterminacy?

I don't really know what you're saying here?

Elephants have funerals.

It doesn’t matter. We still know the right answer can only be one or the other, true or false, albeit we may not know which.

Do you know (JTB) that zero humans have ever adopted a single belief based on what they've read on Reddit (and if so: can you demonstrate that it is necessarily true, and applies to me personally)?

But what do we call an unclear statement that produces contradictory results?

No.

Having learned nothing, the invitation was made, and also ignored.