What could make morality objective?

[TimeSeeker]

Easterners often use many-valued logic, but when they want to get shit done, they turn to classical logic. Not constructive logic, and not many-valued logic, but classical logic.

Do you know why?

No. They don't

They may SAY that they turn to 'classical logic' but that is just a performative contradiction. You go ahead and give me any example where you THINK you are using classical logic and I'll show you the contingencies in your claim.

That's the difference between Work as Imagined vs Work as Done: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7017302375

This line of reasoning always leads to the good ol' adage. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

[Atla]

Easterners often use many-valued logic, but when they want to get shit done, they turn to classical logic. Not constructive logic, and not many-valued logic, but classical logic.

Do you know why?

No. They don't

They may SAY that they turn to 'classical logic' but that is just a performative contradiction. You go ahead and give me any example where you THINK you are using classical logic and I'll show you the contingencies in your claim.

That's the difference between Work as Imagined vs Work as Done: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7017302375

This line of reasoning always leads to the good ol' adage. In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Of course you don't know.

[TimeSeeker]

Of course you don't know.

Of course you think you do

I can't wait for you to tell me, so I can show you where you've made ASSUMPTIONS in reasoning

[Atla]

Of course you don't know.

Of course you think you do

I can't wait for you to tell me, so I can show you where you've made ASSUMPTIONS in reasoning

I made no assumptions. And that coming from someone with an information religion which is an already refuted assumption, is rich.

[TimeSeeker]

I made no assumptions.

That is a lie. Without an axiom (pre-supposition/assumption) you can't make any deductions or inferences. You can't REASON without assumptions.

Of course - since you 'refuted my religion' you have also refuted all logic.

I can tell

[Atla]

I made no assumptions.

That is a lie. Without an axiom (pre-supposition/assumption) you can't make any deductions or inferences. You can't REASON without assumptions.

Of course - since you 'refuted my religion' you have also refuted all logic.

I can tell

No, this is a lie. Because you take it out of context.

You are one of those philosophers who have an insane vision. For example that we should swith to constructivist logic, making human communication more or less impossible.

[TimeSeeker]

No, this is a lie. Because you take it out of context.

That is ad hominem because I have never left the context I have always been in. All of reality.

A more complete system is ALWAYS better than a more incomplete system.

You can do EVERYTHING classical logic does in constructive logic. The reverse is NOT true.

So by CHOOSING to use classical logic you are IMPOSING LIMITS on what is possible! That sounds like a strategic error to me?

Bad choice of tools...

You are one of those philosophers who have an insane vision. For example that we should swith to constructivist logic, making human communication more or less impossible.

That is an argument from ignorance. In my field we invent words/meaning on the fly. We use language metaphorically, literally OR figuratively. We have strategies for detecting/addressing ambiguity. And strategies for resolving conflict. It is BECAUSE we use all the TOOLS available to us we actually communicate MORE EFFECTIVELY and REACH CONSENSUS FASTER.

So much so that we have invented language that YOU can't understand!

So. I am calling bullshit on 'making communication impossible'.

[Atla]

That is ad hominem because I have never left the context I have always been in. All of reality.

Okey then this is an ad hominem too and all you do is write ad hominems. And all of reality was never the context, it makes no sense to even say that here.

That is an argument from ignorance. In my field we invent words/meaning on the fly. We use language metaphorically, literally OR figuratively. We have strategies for detecting/addressing ambiguity. And strategies for resolving conflict. It is BECAUSE we use all the TOOLS available to us we actually communicate MORE EFFECTIVELY and REACH CONSENSUS FASTER.

So much so that we have invented language that YOU can't understand!

So. I am calling bullshit on 'making communication impossible'.

This is an argument from ignorance. Your field is specific and limited and how you approach it can't be applied universally.

AND it's all based deep down on classical logic.

[surreptitious57]

You need to DEMONSTRATE that it exists not merely STATE it otherwise I have no reason to accept your ASSERTION

I have been DEMONSTRATING all along I have thrown at you all the evidence I have and you say Nope not good enough

Maybe you need to be upfront about YOUR criteria ? What demonstration would convince YOU ? Perhaps there is no way to convince you ?

Maybe you lack the Mathematical KNOW HOW to be convinced ? If that is true what then ?

Does that mean that objective morality does not exist or does it mean that you are not smart enough to recognise its existence ?

Knowledge is power but can objective morality which you equate to absolute knowledge be obtained in reality
Even if it could there is zero guarantee that it would be used altruistically for the advancement of the species
Free will both individually and collectively would negate this

An exponential increase in knowledge is possible since it happens on a regular basis but exponential and absolute are not the same
Can the human mind that has limited and unreliable processing capability with regard to memory accommodate objective morality
Would only machines which are many orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans and also error free only be capable of this

Could a super computer existing for all of eternity and processing information at the speed of light ever reach a point of objective morality
Or is objective morality simply a concept like infinity that only exists as an idea but not necessarily an actuality which can be demonstrated

Were this thread programmed into a super computer what answers would it come up with which your mammalian brain would not be able to
Will machine intelligence replace human intelligence and will it increase exponentially over time and if so does this negate absolute morality

Is the concept of absolute morality / objective knowledge one that exists inside your mammalian brain only because humans like to think like this
Can even a machine ever truly possess the same information as the Universe and if not then does it not negate the existence of absolute morality

[TimeSeeker]

Okey then this is an ad hominem too and all you do is write ad hominems. And all of reality was never the context, it makes no sense to even say that here.

Are we not in reality right now? Are we not speaking about GETTING THINGS DONE IN reality? If you decided to set some sub-context then perhaps you should have let me know?

Getting things done is MY line of work!

That is an argument from ignorance. In my field we invent words/meaning on the fly. We use language metaphorically, literally OR figuratively. We have strategies for detecting/addressing ambiguity. And strategies for resolving conflict. It is BECAUSE we use all the TOOLS available to us we actually communicate MORE EFFECTIVELY and REACH CONSENSUS FASTER.

So much so that we have invented language that YOU can't understand!

This is an argument from ignorance. Your field is specific and limited and how you approach it can't be applied universally.

Yeah. It's 'specific and limited'. It is ONLY a SUPERSET of PHYSICS.

AND it's all based deep down on classical logic.

Yes. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP DOWN. Like a few hundred layers of abstraction.

But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So - non-sequitur.

[TimeSeeker]

You need to DEMONSTRATE that it exists not merely STATE it otherwise I have no reason to accept your ASSERTION

I have been DEMONSTRATING all along I have thrown at you all the evidence I have and you say Nope not good enough

Maybe you need to be upfront about YOUR criteria ? What demonstration would convince YOU ? Perhaps there is no way to convince you ?

Maybe you lack the Mathematical KNOW HOW to be convinced ? If that is true what then ?

Does that mean that objective morality does not exist or does it mean that you are not smart enough to recognise its existence ?

Knowledge is power but can objective morality which you equate to absolute knowledge be obtained in reality
Even if it could there is zero guarantee that it would be used altruistically for the advancement of the species
Free will both individually and collectively would negate this

An exponential increase in knowledge is possible since it happens on a regular basis but exponential and absolute are not the same
Can the human mind that has limited and unreliable processing capability with regard to memory accommodate objective morality
Would only machines which are many orders of magnitude more intelligent than humans and also error free only be capable of this

Could a super computer existing for all of eternity and processing information at the speed of light ever reach a point of objective morality
Or is objective morality simply a concept like infinity that only exists as an idea but not necessarily an actuality which can be demonstrated

Were this thread programmed into a super computer what answers would it come up with which your mammalian brain would not be able to
Will machine intelligence replace human intelligence and will it increase exponentially over time and if so does this negate absolute morality

Is the concept of absolute morality / objective knowledge one that exists inside your mammalian brain only because humans like to think like this
Can even a machine ever truly possess the same information as the Universe and if not then does it not negate the existence of absolute morality

You don't require absolute knowledge. That is another tautological absolutist fallacy.

You require more knowledge today that you had yesterday.

By reducing airplane accidents from 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10000 you are already saving lives!

[Atla]

Are we not in reality right now? Are we not speaking about GETTING THINGS DONE IN reality? If you decided to set some sub-context then perhaps you should have let me know?

Getting things done is MY line of work!

No, we aren't speaking about getting things done and no one cares about your line of work.

If you want to talk about getting things done then say so / make a topic about it. And the best way to get things done is to deep down base everything on classical logic too.

Yeah. It's 'specific and limited'. It is ONLY a SUPERSET of PHYSICS.

Physics doesn't have a superset. Maybe it does for delusional people with an information religion.

Yes. DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP DOWN. Like a few hundred layers of abstraction.

But the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. So - non-sequitur.

The whole isn't greater thatn the sum of its parts, that's magical thinking for religious people.
there are abstraction layers but we can never discard their foundation.
Deep down everything is based on classical logic so everything you say is self-refuting.

[TimeSeeker]

OK dimwit, make up your mind.

No, we aren't speaking about getting things done and no one cares about your line of work.

Easterners often use many-valued logic, but when they want to get shit done, they turn to classical logic. Not constructive logic, and not many-valued logic, but classical logic.

Do you know why?

[TimeSeeker]

Physics doesn't have a superset. Maybe it does for delusional people with an information religion.

We are busy inventing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

[TimeSeeker]

The whole isn't greater thatn the sum of its parts, that's magical thinking for religious people.

No. That's pragmatic thinking for people who understand COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY.

there are abstraction layers but we can never discard their foundation.
Deep down everything is based on classical logic so everything you say is self-refuting.

There are. And the upper layers are deterministic from the lower layers.

COMPLEXITY gets in the way.

That's why we can't COMPUTE the CONSEQUENCES of quantum phenomena beyond basic chemistry....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chemistry

No wonder you have no clue how problem-solving actually works