# Can you prove inconsistency without an expectation?

1. Nov 10, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

Isn't consistently being inconsistent... consistency?
Everything within it's own nature is consistent, and the human expectation and/or desire cannot change that to fit his scenario. Definitions of words in this world are lost in misconceptions. I often get made fun of for making these judgements and thinking this way. But hey... i often feel i am alone and in a league of my own (i don't mean this in a cocky way... i mean i really get outcasted by society for thinking so off the wall) It just erks me when i hear people mention the word inconsistency and it's making no sense in its context.

Last edited: Nov 10, 2005
2. Nov 10, 2005

### xPAGANx

That is true if you are simply looking at the big picture. Consistency/Inconsistency should be measured against something. Get a benchmark you are shooting for and measure the results from that.

Consistently being inconsistent will become more inconsistent as you test.

Lets look at it this way...

We do some form of experiment that produces erratic and almost random results.

Say we get the numbers 4, 15, 0, 26 for our answers. They seem inconsistent to us because we expect the same number for each answer.

We do another run of tests and get 7, 9, 12, 2. We are still being consistently inconsistant.

Next run we get 4, 8, 26, 11. Now we have two matches meaning we are no longer consistently being inconsistent. lol this is funny.

We are now more consistent than we were at the beginning, but also less consistent in another context.

It all depends on what consistency you are measuring.

3. Nov 10, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

haha thanks for getting a little laugh out of, it, it makes me crack one every once in a while too, my mind is quite cookoo... i know i'm not the only one, but i should start writing down all the ideas that pop up in my head, half the time i just think about them and then laugh and go on, and they are forever lost. Hey now i have a place to post them, cool. "That is true if you are simply looking at the big picture. " yep that's me, i tend to look at everything from a neutral standpoint, i feel it's a 3rd party perspective and it gives a lot more insite into philosophical understanding.

4. Nov 10, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

this also brings to mind the question... can something, anything... in it's own nature really be more or less consistent?! :) i know.. i know... just being that annoying that kid.

5. Nov 10, 2005

### jimmie

I don't think so.

So long as any "thing" that really "is/be", it is consistently being that which it is, no more and no less.

It is what it is, always.

6. Nov 10, 2005

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
'Things' are not inconsistent with one another. It's statements that are inconsistent. P and ~P cannot both be true. That's pretty much all there is to it. The problem arises when people make valid arguments that contains premises that are inconsistent with one another. Obviously, it's usually more subtle than P and ~P, but because this can happen, we stipulate that to accept an argument, it must be valid and be constructed of premises that are all consistent with one another.

7. Nov 13, 2005

### dgoodpasture2005

thanks, thanks guys, appreciate it.. just nice to know that i'm not going crazy sometimes, some people understand me.