What could make morality objective?

[Atla]

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?

Went over your head huh why I made that example.

[Atla]

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

No we aren't busy, we aren't inventing it, there is no "we" and physical information is NOT the same as Shannon information.

[TimeSeeker]

No we aren't busy, we aren't inventing it, there is no "we" and physical information is NOT the same as Shannon information.

It's mathematically isomorphic. In exactly the same way that classical logic is at the bottom of all other logics.

If you think there is a difference, but you can't explain it or describe it - that is your problem?

[Atla]

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

Computation complexity, used in this context, is a reification fallacy for retards who don't understand computation and complexity.

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

Strawman again, again you have no idea about how such problem-solving is still based deep down on classical logic.
Goes also way over your head how little quantum behaviour has to do with the logic of general philosophical thinking.

[Atla]

No we aren't busy, we aren't inventing it, there is no "we" and physical information is NOT the same as Shannon information.

It's mathematically isomorphic. In exactly the same way that classical logic is at the bottom of all other logics.

If you think there is a difference, but you can't explain it or describe it - that is your problem?

Arguing with mathematical isomorphism in this context is for retards who don't understand what isomorphism is.

If you can't see the difference between two rocks and the number two then I don't know what to tell you.

[TimeSeeker]

Computation complexity, used in this context, is a reification fallacy for retards who don't understand computation and complexity.

You offer no pragmatic alternative so I have no other means of reasoning.

There are. And the upper layers are deterministic from the lower layers.
Goes also way over your head how little quantum behaviour has to do with the logic of general philosophical thinking.

Yes. Because philosophical brains are made up of magical stuff.

That's why you are a sophist, not a philosopher.

[TimeSeeker]

Arguing with mathematical isomorphism in this context is for retards who don't understand what isomorphism is.

It's the law of identity.

[Atla]

You offer no pragmatic alternative so I have no other means of reasoning.

Who said anything about pragmatism. And what do you want alternative for anyway?

Yes. Because philosophical brains are made up of magical stuff.

That's why you are a sophist, not a philosopher.

The way we approach QM and embed further logics about it, is still based on classical logic.

It's the law of identity.

No. Two rocks aren't the same as the number 2. (In case you didn't know.)

[TimeSeeker]

No. Two rocks aren't the same as the number 2. (In case you didn't know.)

Yeah but the fact that you DETERMINED that both objects are 'rocks' IS the same.

One of them could have been a ROCK and the other could have been a DIAMOND.

So you COMPARED TWO OBJECTS. And you DETERMINED that they are THE SAME.

The two things are NOT the same! They have different shapes, forms and sizes. Different quantum fluctuations. Different positions in spacetime.

So HOW can TWO DIFFERENT THINGS be "THE SAME"?

You are so ignorant of your own mind's inner workings it's embarrassing!

[Atla]

No. Two rocks aren't the same as the number 2. (In case you didn't know.)

Yeah but the fact that you DETERMINED that both objects are 'rocks' IS the same.

One of them could have been a ROCK and the other could have been a DIAMOND.

So you COMPARED TWO OBJECTS. And you DETERMINED that they are THE SAME.

The two things are NOT the same! They have different shapes, forms and sizes. Different quantum fluctuations. Different positions in spacetime.

So HOW can TWO DIFFERENT THINGS be "THE SAME"?

You are so ignorant of your own mind's inner workings it's embarrassing!

Total strawman, comparing the rocks/whatever to each other has nothing to do with it.

I was talking about concrete objects like rocks vs abstract "objects" like numbers.

Are you genuinely incapable of processing this?

[TimeSeeker]

Total strawman, comparing the rocks/whatever to each other has nothing to do with it.

COMPARING things to EACH OTHER has EVERYTHING to do with COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY!

I was talking about concrete objects like rocks vs abstract "objects" like numbers.

Are you genuinely incapable of processing this?

You are on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger and I am about to demonstrate it to you. Teaching opportunity

Here is a Yes or No question: Is this -> M the same as this -> М?

Yes or No.

[surreptitious57]

You dont 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

Then you cannot call it objective morality if it does not involve absolute knowledge. As that would mean 0 lives were lost in
airplane accidents not merely I in I0000. Anything more than 0 and it is merely exponential knowledge. Absolute knowledge
is the point at which there is no new knowledge to acquire. As you cannot reach this point you cannot call it objective morality

In this context the words absolute and knowledge are interchangeable :
objective morality = absolute knowledge
absolute morality = objective knowledge

So your equation COMPLETENESS = INCOMPLETENESS + X = I is therefore only true as a concept not as an actuality
Exactly like an asymptote which gets nearer and nearer to a line on an axis without EVER actually touching the line

[TimeSeeker]

You dont 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

Then you cannot call it objective morality if it does not involve absolute knowledge. As that would mean 0 lives were lost in
airplane accidents not merely I in I0000. Anything more than 0 and it is merely exponential knowledge. Absolute knowledge
is the point at which there is no new knowledge to acquire. As you cannot reach this point you cannot call it objective morality

In this context the words absolute and knowledge are interchangeable :
objective morality = absolute knowledge
absolute morality = objective knowledge

So your equation COMPLETENESS = INCOMPLETENESS + X = I is therefore only true as a concept not as an actuality
Exactly like an asymptote which gets nearer and nearer to a line on an axis without EVER actually touching the line

You know like when I said you cannot be convinced? You have defined 'objective morality' as 'perfect knowledge' while ALSO knowing that 'perfect knowledge' is impossible FOR ANY ENTITY INSIDE THE SYSTEM. You are a human.... so you have to let go of one of those beliefs. Or you can preserve your belief and invent 'God'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Relativity_of_Wrong

Objective Morality is EXACTLY asymptotic.
Exactly like science is asymptotic.


Pragmatic ethics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_ethics

[Atla]

Total strawman, comparing the rocks/whatever to each other has nothing to do with it.

COMPARING things to EACH OTHER has EVERYTHING to do with COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY!

I was talking about concrete objects like rocks vs abstract "objects" like numbers.

Are you genuinely incapable of processing this?

You are on the wrong side of the Dunning-Kruger and I am about to demonstrate it to you. Teaching opportunity

Here is a Yes or No question: Is this -> M the same as this -> М?

Yes or No.

Total strawman; again your example is comparing two concrete objects, it's not about the abstract vs concrete.

You genuinely can't process the abstract vs concrete (which I said right from the start).

[TimeSeeker]

Total strawman; again your example is comparing two concrete objects, it's not about the abstract vs concrete.

You genuinely can't process the abstract vs concrete (which I said right from the start).

And yet you can't even compare two letters.

But you think you can compare the complex notions of 'abstract' and 'concrete'

You are like the 5 year old who thinks he can win at the 100m sprint at the olympics. You don't even know what you don't know.

Here is a clue. You claim those objects are concrete. I am claiming they are abstractions.

And if you answer my yes/no question I will prove me right and you wrong