Spent an entire hour listening to a greek lecturer try and explain the "Value of Logic" using ghosts. Now he isn't the easiest of men to understand because of his rather shit english and accent and the ghost analogy is a pretty good one as demonstrated below... but he went off track, severely off track. Infact he went so off track that 120 Computer Science students, the entire lecture theatre, started to ignore him. He started going on about ghosts in 2D and 3D dimensions, what ghosts are made of, why we believe in ghosts and after that I fell asleep.

Below are extracts from his offical notes and I have a recording of his lecture on my dictaphone of the entire thing.



“Ghosts may exist”
Could you argue for or against?



“Ghosts may exist”: argue for or against
“Ghosts do not exist” has not been proven
It is either A (ghosts exist) or not (A)
not (A) has unknown truth value (true or false)
Therefore, A has also unknown value
Therefore, Ghost may exist.
- Logically correct !
- Probabilistically weak
(no one ever provided evidence for existence)
- Not underpinned by a theory of how ghosts may exist



“Ghosts may exist”: argue for or against
“Ghosts may exist” because the majority says so
General form of argument: “If most say so, it is so” (appeal to majority)
Is Democracy based on a logically fallacy?
Juries always decide by majority.
Therefore all court decisions are correct.
Democracy is based on a logically fallacy. Other similar forms of logical
fallacies: appeal to authority (if the expert says so … ), appeal to tradition
(if history/tradition says so … )
What about ethics: “If it is acceptable by most, it is acceptable by me



The analogy of the two-dimensional world shows that the
existence of “ghosts” can be rationalised if we assume the
existence of extra dimensions that we cannot perceive.
Ghosts can be imagined as “shadows” of beings that exist
in higher dimensional spaces
Note that contemporary theories in Physics assume many
dimensions.





I have decided to stop going to his crazy lectures