With Best Play for both sides Chess is a Draw--So Why Do We Play?

Another sophistry. You confuse temporary assumptions with proven facts. Besides, you cannot prove a statement XYZ to be true from just assuming it to be true. If anything, you can at best prove it to be false if the assumption that XYZ is true leads you to a contradiction (reductio ad absurdum).

Also, good luck with "proofs" made based on faulty axioms. "Garbage in, garbage out", as the saying goes.

My question to you is: if it was not a fact that I was sleeping, why did I feel refreshed in the morning?

Let's see: 10 pm -- ok, I don't remember being awake, but I couldn't have been sleeping because I wasn't aware that I was sleeping. 11 pm -- just another hour where I'm not sleeping. 12 am -- more not sleeping. 1 am -- more not sleeping. 2 am -- more not sleeping. 3 am -- more not sleeping. 4 am -- more not sleeping. 5 am -- more not sleeping. 6 am -- more not sleeping. 7 am -- more not sleeping...

8 am -- ok, now I remember being awake, but why do I feel so fresh suddenly? After all, look at all of those hours where I wasn't sleeping. 

You might say "now I'm aware I was sleeping." That doesn't really make any sense -- if, as I have given in the second paragraph, I wasn't sleeping at 2 am, 3 am, 4 am, etc, how can I in the morning become aware of something that wasn't true? Are you saying that by being awake I can change what happened, or didn't happen, in the past?

I didn't confuse them -- I recognize their distinctions.

I never said that it, in the real world, was actually true that her heart was beating -- I was giving an assumption and asking if the conclusion followed.

Like I said, logic doesn't concern itself with proving axioms. Indeed, we need more than just logic to have true arguments. I am with you on that one.

This thread, now 12 pages long, has been going in circles over at least the last 10 pages, since where the validity of the thread's premise statement was first put to question. It is probably not by accident that many members who were taking part in the discussion and have provided much sound argumentation have since long left.

A being dwelling on a planet orbiting a star may not make assertions about that matter (i.e. state "It is a fact that the planet I inhabit orbits a star" or ""It is a fact that the planet I inhabit does not orbit a star") if it is incapable of making observations leading it to a proof, or obtain such information otherwise.

Similarly, a person may not make assertions about the outcome of the game of chess with perfect play on both sides (I.e. state "It is a fact that a game of chess inevitably leads to a draw with perfect play on both sides" or "It is a fact that a game of chess inevitably leads to a win for White with perfect play on both sides" or "It is a fact that a game of chess inevitably leads to a win for Black with perfect play on both sides"), if said person is incapable of making observations leading it to a proof, or obtain such information otherwise.

As it happens, nobody can obtain the necessary proof, hence nobody may make any of the three above statements. All that can be said is "It is a fact that a game of chess with perfect play on both sides must inevitably either lead to a draw, or a win for White, or a win for Black, but we are unable to determine which of the three possibilities is true". This is about the only thing concerning this matter which may be called fact.

You misunderstand, I never said at those times you were not sleeping. I simply said you did not know. Upon waking, you know that you were asleep during the night, therefore making you sleeping that night a fact. Had you not awaken, you might not have been sleeping all those hours but rather dead, and that would not be proven until someone finds you

@jaaas: a fact is something that can exist independent of the knowledge of a person. You need knowledge to recognize or acknowledge a fact. A fact does not need you to acknowledge it. It is.

The number pi is independent of its representation. It has always the same value. The number pi is a fact. Independent if you or me happen to know it. The number of pi existed before we humans could write. It is exactly a fact, because it does not need anything else to exist. And it still will exist after humanity has gone extinct.

There is a difference between the act of knowing and the existence of that what is known. If those would be the same, then would the existence of pi stop the moment all sentient beings would forget about it. If the act of knowing would be the same as the existence of what is known, then how can the first knowledge exist? It would depend on itself to exist.

The difference is inevitable. It can be wrong what you know, but a fact is a fact and has no opportunity to be wrong. It can be wrongfully reminded, but that does not change the fact. There are a lot of times that you do not know the status of the knowledge: is it a fact or an opinion, a believe or a wrong statement? That might give you the idea that your prove of a fact is needed to know that something is a fact and hence a fact. The last part is wrong.

You can never prove a fact by something else then its own presence.

Another line of argument: if you really would believe that what you say is true, then should you accept that you can never prove your own assertions. Your own reasoning will lead you inevitably to accept that fulfillment of a truth sentence relies on the next proof that still has to be made. Otherwise will you have to acknowledge that there are facts that do not need any further proof. You do not accept that, hence you will always need a proof that is different from the fact itself. Therefore will you always need something external to the statement to prove the statement. But when you do have to do that, then will you have to accept that your proofs will in the end be based on statements that have to be proven yet. In other words: if you use your own words onto your own words, then will you never be able to proof that your own words are correct.

You understand that numbers are not real... we made them. The number pi did not exist before us

"You misunderstand, I never said at those times you were not sleeping. I simply said you did not know."

Thanks for clarifying. I was under the impression you were arguing that because I had no awareness of sleep while it was supposedly happening, that I didn't sleep at all during the night.

We did not invent numbers, we did not invent pi. Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter.That is independent of our knowledge. That we call it pi is circumstantial. The number itself is not. Numbers are independent of our reality, but they are not fake.

Correct. I have never been denying this, even though many have been putting it into my mouth (just one of the aspects making the discussion futile).

A certain individual ABC may not personally call a statement XYZ a fact without ABC himself having prior knowledge confirming that XYZ is indeed a fact, irrespective of whether XYZ is indeed factual or not.

I won't repeat anymore what I have already said, so if in doubt, please see my previous post.

Magnus takes draw to the advanced level. Finding a draw when the entire Pro world has counted him out. Go Magnus

I think Jaas is certainly on the right track.  It reminds me of an essay in Ordinary Language Philosophy by JL Austin on the subject of "Other Minds," and here we most notably see the interplay between what has been defined as fact (i.e. the possible results, one of which is the case and not more because they are mutualy exclusive options) and the perhaps more sophisticated thing of knowledge.  Austin would press us to ask someone who claims to know something, how they know what they state.  This would be followed by a series of intricate questions aimed at providing sufficient demonstrability of knowledge and this standard of evidence may vary given different contexts.  I think here there is a genuine concern for the scope of our possible knowledge.  This is not to say that we may never be able to demonstrate the objective outcome of the game, but given current conditions we cannot assert that we know as a matter of fact the outcome of this royal game.  Science works with the hope of future advancement, and just because something is not now possible we should not lose course.

Numbers are fake, the concept is what is real.... Ask yourself what is a 5, it is a concept. We invented pi, not the concept. We could have easily called it po. 

It's pretty safe to assume (not in the logical sense, but for the real world) that it's not perceiving reality that creates it. Certainly we can't perceive of something before it's there, so the only argument against my assumption is that there happens to be a new reality the very moment that we first perceive of it  -- perhaps it coincidentally pops into existence, or it's our preparing to perceive a reality that creates it.

Or... perhaps we aren't just randomly omnipotent. Yes, that seems like a pretty reasonable theory, but there are always some people who confidently embrace the more cherry picked, far fetched ideas. Good luck living your life that way; I suggest putting your hand into a burning fireplace -- might be fun, and don't trust those guys who say your hand will get burned -- they're full of it.

I do not fully understand what point you are making here?

There is little point in arguing over philosophy of mathematics -- better to read SEP instead.

ponz111: are you surprised by my finding that of the 4 slow games of mine I checked, none of them was winning before move 16?

That it is safe to assume that truth is independant of knowledge. Because people seem to have been challenging this somewhat obvious statement, I qualified it by saying that we cannot be 100% sure that it is the case, but it is pretty silly to not be very confident that it is.

Remember, by "truth" I do not mean "awareness that something is true." I mean, simply that the thing is true. Even if 100% of people believed a certain thing to be true, it might still be false. The neurons in the brains of those 100% of people will not magically create it.

I see what you mean, like just because something is accepted as fact doesnt make it true

I admit my baby example didn't demonstrate the point effectively. But, now at least my point should be clear.