## Friday, October 16, 2009

### Introducing the "null god"

I don't know if this idea has be presented before, I am very sure it has, considering all the debate that has been going on for thousands of years. I have not read or heard of this, so I am proposing it on my own. If someone else came up with this, I would love to read more about their ideas.

First there is the idea of the atheist and the theist.
The atheist says their is no god: g=0, we will rewrite this a "a=0"
the theist says their is a god(s): g>=1, we will rewrite this as "t=1"
The nullist (is that a word?) says their god is null: g=null, we will rewrite this as "n=null"

I am going to play with some math and logic here.

an athiest and a theist get into a debate:
and they agree: t+a = 1 (still theist)
and they disagree: t-a = 1 (still theist)

A bunch of atheists get into the argument with some very solid logic
and they agree: t+a+a+a+a+a = 1 (still theist)

We can also assume in the above examples: true and false, instead of 1 and 0.

The trick here is introducing a third state/value of null.
Lets look at a truth table using true, false and null as used in computer systems

 T A and or true true true true true false false true true null null true false true false true false false false false false null false null null true null true null false false null null null null null

There are only a couple states we are interest in the above for our purposes.
1. The theist comes from the perspective that their position is true
so if we look at the first column we see three true items.
So the athiest can come from a position of true, false or null to argue.
If the theist thinks for one moment that what they say is true, or your stuff could also be true, but they are just not sure - what will the result be?
If they are not sure about your position, their logical choice is "OR".
So from their point of view, the answer is always true - they win.

The other thing to not as long as you are going from the point of an argument, they have to make a choice this OR that. So whether you introduce a null god or not, in the world of arguing a point, that position gets you no where. the result is they still come to their conclusion of true.

 T A and or true true true true true false false true true null null true

You can also think of the argument from a position that A = not (T).
That works from a truth table of true/false, but not if null is involved or numbers are involved.
a=0, t=1: so A <> not(T), also A <> abs(T), and tons of other formulas.
As long a A and T are on opposite sides of the equality test, you have problems.

BUT

if you change the formula around. x does not mean anything here. x is just a place holder that we will use in later arguments. The key is that a and t are on the same side of the formula:

x + x = true
x + x = false
x + x = null
x + x = 0
x + x = 1

If you take this a little further you can have some real fun
x + x = sqrt(-1) = i (the imaginary number) ... ooooh fun.

stay tuned... more to come

#### 1 comment:

1. I wrote this for the intellectual crowd. Use this on a person on the street and you might as well be talking Klingon.

Other posts show how to use in everyday talk.

--Jack

comments are welcome on this site. They are moderated, but primarily to remove spam. Please keep the comments rated PG-13.