***Boolean Logic: The Infallible Method of Discernment Between Truth & Falsehood***
Written by: Oz\ Date of Publication: 2020-02-21\ URL: https://gist.github.com/SalviaSage/0eac852d9fc6ec74071062c78f72de3d/edit
Foreword: This text is a philosophical work which argues about Boolean logic, its place in existence, its importance and its magnificence. It argues that Boolean logic is an ultimate philosophical truth which is free of prejudice and bias. It argues that fundamental truths are based on this concept and that it has to be based on it.
Chapter I
I, the author of this work, have studied the scientific subject of articulatory phonetics. There were concepts there that I was not able to understand. For example, I did not understand the nature of ejective consonants. I read that there were such consonants and I had seen a video of someone accurately pronouncing these consonants. I thought to myself; “Wow, how is she able to pronounce those sounds?” I was not able to pronounce them myself. I took a break from the study of articulatory phonetics in order to study computer programming or "coding".
Again, there, I had many failures. I wanted to do certain things with computer code and I was not able to do it. I discussed my inability to achieve what I wanted to do with other computer programmers online and they were able to solve the problems that I could not solve for me. I was amazed at their problem solving skills. At that time, I had no clue as to how they were able to solve those problems. Later, I went back to studying articulatory phonetics and to my surprise, I was now able to figure out what I could not before. I sat down and I said to myself, I will figure out how these ejective consonants work, and I did. It merely took me two days to figure it out; whereas before I studied computer programming, I could never do it. I wasn't aware of it, but now I was thinking more logically. Later on I realized that it was this logical thinking which had allowed me to learn of the nature of ejective consonants. I realized that logic helped me figure out something I hadn't understood. I saw the role of mathematical logic as it pertains to digital data and digital technology. In fact, seeing how everything in computers is based on Boolean logic had convinced me I had come across something that was very important and that was ultimately true everywhere.
Here, in this literary text, I am making the argument that Boolean logic is the most absolute way to discern what is true and false. I am making the argument that this is “an ultimate truth”. I am making the argument that it is what everything is based on, whether we are able to discern its truth from its false, that it is independent of our petty thoughts, beliefs, opinions and that this logical method is true and it has to be because of the nature of Boolean logic.
So then, why is this a correct method? Simply because it has to be. According to Boolean logic there can only be one truth and an infinite number of falses. We can clearly see that there are many philosophies and religions, philosophers, prophets and masters. Often, these ideologies claim that the other ideology, religion or dogma is wrong and that they are right. Often, there is an opposing ideology or an argument that is found for any given concept. Afterlife versus reincarnation, good versus evil, sin versus virtue and so on and so forth. In reality, one out of the two such opposing and invalidating arguments could never be true and they are not. I make the argument that in fact, the truth is a combination of such two opposing factors. That, two opposites, make one whole truth. That each of those factors are equally valid and is free of human bias and prejudices.
Entirety of science, scientific knowledge and the scientific method is based on Boolean logic. What we know to be true is based on Boolean logic, the method of trial and error is entirely based on Boolean logic. It is a simple method, you do not know the truth and you can not act based upon it, therefore you discover the falses until you do discover what is true, you may never actually find it but it is still there.
For example, the statement E = mc² is true and the statement E = mc³ is false. This true mathematical statement is attributed to Albert Einstein; however before he talked about it, it was still the truth. The truth is infallible, that is what it makes it the truth, whether you acknowledge it or not, see it or not.
Boolean logic is a very simply concept to understand. It argues that there are only two factors, true and false. There is no room for prejudice or assumptions here; it simply doesn't exist. The reason why it doesn't exist is because it can't. It works in absolutes. If all you have is 100% or 0%, on or off, 1 or a 0 and you have nothing in between, you simply can't have any kind of prejudice or bias. If this makes full sense to you, then you understand Boolean logic. If it only makes somewhat sense to you, you don't understand Boolean logic at all. Remember, everything works in absolutes here and being able to see that and understand that is the first step in bringing logic into our lives. This is what is in place with computers, robots and all digital technology. They work this way, then we must assume that they are free of bias and prejudice and that they are not capable of it.
I tell you, having discovered this truth, I have no doubts. I am certain of everything and with clarity. I can discern the truth from the untruth better now. I make logical explanations on matters. Sometimes, even language can hardly keep up with me. I can accept everything in the world exactly as it is, things do not bother me. An underlying problem with other ideologies is that there is always something there that they are in conflict with, that they have a problem with. Such things can not possibly have a place in an ideology or a religion which claims to be true. So there you have it, I give you a path that really is free from all of that, that can accept things the way they are.
"The truth will set you free"
Chapter 2
In this chapter, I want to go further into details of human prejudices and bias as it relates to Boolean logic. I want to demonstrate it by giving some examples.
Imagine if I were to tell someone to count the numbers, surely, he will say “one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten”. He will assume that he is right. In reality, he is false. He did not count the “zero”. In fact, computers count starting from zero, because that is what is right, and if it didn’t, the computer wouldn’t work. The reason why the human counts falsefully in this way is because “zero” is not there, and thus it is skipped. It was mathematicians who discovered the importance of “zero” or of the “empty set” and that it must be accounted for. If you don’t, you are simply false. Also, why is it that the human has counted to ten? Why not, let’s say up to eight? This is again, because of human bias as they have ten fingers. Thus this is what they base counting on and that is what makes the most sense to them and what they find to be easiest, due to their own nature. This counting system is called the decimal system, but you see, counting does not have to be done in the decimal system. It can be done in the binary system, which works in multiples of two or in the octal system, which works in the multiples of eight or in the hexadecimal system, which works in the multiples of sixteen and other such systems. The computer, in fact, can easily utilize and does utilize the various other systems while the human finds it perplexingly complicated to do so. And again, to further bolster my point, there are negative numbers and there are positive numbers. So then, if you say that I am wrong, where is the third grouping?
Another good example is this: if I tell someone to count the names of the letters of the alphabet, he will then say “pee, cue, are, ess, tee, yoo, vee, double yoo, eks, wye, zee”. In fact, he is wrong about the “double yoo”. It is in fact, a “double vee”. But, everyone says “double u” and it was taught to him as such. In fact , it is a “double v” and both the letters “W” and “U” are derived from the letter “V”. The letter “W” is called “double v” in all other languages as well, while it is called “double u” in English incorrectly. This is a good example in human bias and it allows to see things differently.
Chapter 3 Non-Binary gender can still be binary
I feel the need to make this chapter which tries to shoot down questions such as,\“Okay, so you believe in binary gender then? What about people who don’t conform to that standard?”
It isn’t only in the human sexes do we see such variations and what looks like a “non-conformity” to what it is that I discussed about in this document. In languages, there exists a neuter grammatical gender such as in German and in Greek. There, there are three grammatical gender inflections, such as feminine, masculine and neuter. But what you may fail to understand is that these three categories are still binary. They would in fact, then be categorized as “gendered inflections”, under which masculine and feminine is and non-gendered inflections, under which “neuter” is. So, if someone is of “non-binary gender” and or wish to identify as such, this does not at all invalidate the points I made in this document. I can give you further examples from grammar, such as the concepts of “animacy” and “inanimacy”, and of the “nominative case” and the “oblique case”, which we sometimes call “subjective” and “objective” as that is easier for people who don’t understand grammar. But, you see, there isn’t a third category, and insistingly, there are no words to describe that “third” category where-ever we look. I see this in mathematics. I see this in linguistics. I see this in computer programming. It seems as if wherever I look, Boolean logic just keeps confirming itself.