Portal. A philosophical conundrum.

[Phyroxis]

But then the cake doesn't exist objectively. It only exist as long as we know its not a lie. But wait... are you saying that as long as we believe the cake to exist that it would physically exist and the fact that we didn't find it is completely coincidental? And because we now think the cake is a lie there is no way we're going to find it because we're not going to look for it because its a lie. So the cake really did exist? We just thought it was a lie and stopped looking for it?

Use gun.

And if tha' don't work?

Use more gun.

Wise words.

I have yet to meet someone who can outsmart bullet.

 

[CriticallyAcclaimed]

Wow, this thread has quite a large amount of cake and naked ladies.
Either way, you've used the transitive property WRONG.

Lies exist.
The cake is a lie.
The cake, therefore, exists.

No, that doesn't mean the cake exists, it proves that the LIE exists.
And actually, the cake is not a lie. You see it at the end of the game (this isn't a spoiler, cause lets be honest, it's a cake).
Boom.

 

[OtherAlex]

Just to clarify, I have beaten portal, seen the cake, raved away to the end song and so and so forth.

And my grasp of philosophy is what i like to call the rage against the machine method.

Sounds alright, but is sophomoric as fuck.

 

[sneak_copter]

Ah, but it isn't a cake. It's a cake with a bomb. So therefore, the cake is a lie, because it does not exist. The cake with a bomb DOES exist.

The Cake is a lie.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

The cake is a paradox.

 

[ManiacalZManiac]

Actually, I have found a flaw in your thinking. Lies do exist. But the cake is a lie. THE CAKE, HAS BECOME A LIE. It is a lie, not a lie about cake. Therefore, there is no cake.

OI, WOW. That REALLY made my head hurt. >_<

 

[OtherAlex]

Arguably from a Ontological point of view, the cake, though a lie, does is exist.

Lies exist.
The cake is a lie.
The cake, therefore, exists.

Sadly, you have here committed the first-year philosophy student error of confusing the 'is' of predication with the 'is' of identity. The problem comes that the manner in which 'exist' is used in the major premise isn't matched with the usage of 'is' in the minor premise. Another example makes the problem clearer:

My cat Fluffy is an animal.
Animals have walked the earth for millions of years prior to the existence of humans.
My cat Fluffy has walked the earth for millions of years prior to the existence of humans.

Clearly, the argument is nonsensical.

(also, for those people out there who try to read to much into everything because you have spent far too much time on these forums rather than between the sheets with a naked woman, this is purely for a lol)

You have also apparently committed the non-philosophy student fallacy that people who take language seriously are incapable of sustaining human relationships, and the best measure of this capacity is the amount of sex a particular person is having. In fact, there are only two scientifically proven positive correlations to the frequency of sex for male humans:

- Amount of alcohol consumed by the female humans in close proximity.
- Degree of the male human's resemblance to Brad Pitt.

One fairly recent and surprising negative correlation, however, is the degree to which the male human uses internet abbreviations (such as 'lol') as if they were actual English words. Frankly, I fear for the future of the race if this research proves true after additional
analysis.

Dude...steady on. You are taking this far to seriously. I just wanted to try and create a little amusement.

And though the argument is nonsensical, which I am actually fully aware of, this was just a piss take. It is pure logic.

 

[antipunt]

I like the OP

 

[The Bandit]

Arguably from a Ontological point of view, the cake, though a lie, does is exist.

Lies exist.
The cake is a lie.
The cake, therefore, exists.

Sadly, you have here committed the first-year philosophy student error of confusing the 'is' of predication with the 'is' of identity. The problem comes that the manner in which 'exist' is used in the major premise isn't matched with the usage of 'is' in the minor premise. Another example makes the problem clearer:

My cat Fluffy is an animal.
Animals have walked the earth for millions of years prior to the existence of humans.
My cat Fluffy has walked the earth for millions of years prior to the existence of humans.

Clearly, the argument is nonsensical.

(also, for those people out there who try to read to much into everything because you have spent far too much time on these forums rather than between the sheets with a naked woman, this is purely for a lol)

You have also apparently committed the non-philosophy student fallacy that people who take language seriously are incapable of sustaining human relationships, and the best measure of this capacity is the amount of sex a particular person is having. In fact, there are only two scientifically proven positive correlations to the frequency of sex for male humans:

- Amount of alcohol consumed by the female humans in close proximity.
- Degree of the male human's resemblance to Brad Pitt.

One fairly recent and surprising negative correlation, however, is the degree to which the male human uses internet abbreviations (such as 'lol') as if they were actual English words. Frankly, I fear for the future of the race if this research proves true after additional
analysis.

Dude...steady on. You are taking this far to seriously. I just wanted to try and create a little amusement.

And though the argument is nonsensical, which I am actually fully aware of, this was just a piss take. It is pure logic.

tl;dr:
There is no conundrum. The lie exists. The cake doesn't.
/thread

 

[OtherAlex]

There is no conundrum. The lie exists. The cake doesn't.
/thread

I like you, you have spike as your avatar. Kudos to you.

 

[DigitalSushi]

If your going to go that far...

Technically neither the cake nor lies exsist, as those are just nouns we use to tag the object.

So you could argue that nothing actually exsists. The object exsists. But the name doesnt. Therefore neither the cake nor the lies exsist. Henceforeth God doesnt exsist as that is the noun we have used to tag the non entity.

Confused yet?

Ok but if your not looking at the Cake does it existence stop?, If a cake falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[The Bandit]

There is no conundrum. The lie exists. The cake doesn't.
/thread

I like you, you have spike as your avatar. Kudos to you.

As to you. And for trying to find philosophical meaning in a video game revolving around cake.

 

[DigitalSushi]

Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. ~Andre Gide

Believe those who are seeking the cake. Doubt those who find it. ~Andre Gide

 

[OtherAlex]

to quote the great glados, "keep on trying, til you run out of cake."

 

[Steve Dark]

*Eats all the cake*
Urrmm... there was no cake, it was a lie...

 

[Gruthar]

What's next, Schrödinger's cake?

 

[ThreeWords]

Actually, I have found a flaw in your thinking. Lies do exist. But the cake is a lie. THE CAKE, HAS BECOME A LIE. It is a lie, not a lie about cake. Therefore, there is no cake.

Not quite:

The cake is a lie
Lies exist
Therefore, the cake is a lie, not a cake
It is a lie about cake, not a cake in itself

In the same way, this thread's author wrote about a naked woman.
He wrote about her, but his writing is not her

 

[ThreeWords]

And the cake is in no way a god.

If I believe it is God, can you []prove/i] me wrong?

 

[OtherAlex]

Schrödinger's cake is dead.

 

[zacaron]

well you could look at it from the point of the cake not existing or you could look at it from the point of: you were promised cake and they lied to you about that making the cake a lie, thus both the cake and the lie exist but you were allowed only to have the lie instead of the cake.