What is P and -P?

[Skepdick]

I cannot interpret what you said past the first instance of a repeated letter. Sorry. It could make sense or not but I have no referent meaning.

What? The? Fuck?

You can't interpret what "now" means?
Can you interpret "now"?
And "now"?

Do you know what "now" means?

[By the way, you ASSUMED without asserting that in your program assignment to system time that time itself IS different in each call.

Obviously it's different! In which universe is now the same as now?

But you CALL the program also at different times. You could have just as simply defined your function without reference to anything and have it return "false".

*sigh*. The definition doesn't return "false" - it returns a Symbol.

time3.png

If the indirection is confusing you, I'll simplify it.... no more X! Just Time.now

time5.png

[Skepdick]

Your brain determines the applicability of your ideas. Not something else. If you think something else does this, name the something else and describe how it makes the determination. How would something else make any sort of assessment?

I name Entropy. Colloquially known as "the test of time" and I provide exhibit A.

Human applies idea called "bridge". Human assumes location of river is a constant. Reality decides it's a variable.

So in the language of natural selection, it seems the usefulness/fitness of the bridge idea was subject to some external selection pressures.

bridge.jpg

[Scott Mayers]

I cannot interpret what you said past the first instance of a repeated letter. Sorry. It could make sense or not but I have no referent meaning.

What? The? Fuck?

You can't interpret what "now" means?
Can you interpret "now"?
And "now"?

Do you know what "now" means?

Proof that you cannot recognize CONTEXTUAL reflection of my point. If you embrace being "inconsistency' of the necessary minimal laws, then stop being hypocritical by using more than 26 letters and 5 or so punctuation rules. Why would it matter if you said,

jllkdjghohfdj dkl eoth

Given you think that this CAN 'mean' something by SOME measure of inconsistent structure? Thus, you missed the point.

[By the way, you ASSUMED without asserting that in your program assignment to system time that time itself IS different in each call.

Obviously it's different! In which universe is now the same as now?

But you CALL the program also at different times. You could have just as simply defined your function without reference to anything and have it return "false".

*sigh*. The definition doesn't return "false" - it returns a Symbol.

time3.png

If the indirection is confusing you, I'll simplify it.... no more X! Just Time.now

time5.png

YOU are the confused one. If you want to get technical, speak on the machine level of some given architecture. Prove to me further that you understand the literal electronic engineering that goes into computer logic. A higher order logic is cheating when we are discussing metalogical rules. If you cannot do this, use some explicit system's rules that you find breaks those metalogical rules. That is, show me directly that you know what you are talking about by LISTING a set of propositions, definitions, and undefined terms of a specific logic that you are implying works. Then I can point to where those metalogical rules still require existing.

I already KNOW what you mean and my own attempt at setting up what you think is something that I am doing. I only have to use those given laws, even to define any 'inconsistency' with respect to other systems. The only distinction is to ADD what you DO with what you would normally toss out. That's it.

[Scott Mayers]

Note that IF you can use some program,...any program, on a computer that is founded on consistent logic, means that there is a real TRANSLATION that occurs when compiling or interpreting a program. You cannot USE such a system to PROVE a system can exist without consistency because having such a program implies necessarily that a compiled machine code based on consistent logic can always be found.

This also relates to the problem of finding a literal random generation machine in nature.

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

[Skepdick]

Proof that you cannot recognize CONTEXTUAL reflection of my point. If you embrace being "inconsistency' of the necessary minimal laws, then stop being hypocritical by using more than 26 letters and 5 or so punctuation rules. Why would it matter if you said,

jllkdjghohfdj dkl eoth

Given you think that this CAN 'mean' something by SOME measure of inconsistent structure? Thus, you missed the point.

I missed your point then. I am missing your point now.

All you are proving is that you are failing to make your point.

YOU are the confused one. If you want to get technical, speak on the machine level of some given architecture. Prove to me further that you understand the literal electronic engineering that goes into computer logic. A higher order logic is cheating when we are discussing metalogical rules.

That you continue speak of rules (which are 100% arbitrarily chosen by humans) when we speak about logic is nothing but indication of your confusion.

I am not talking about the rules of logic - it doesn't have any!
I am talking about the logic of rules. The reasons behind constructing logical systems. The reason for choosing the rules/axioms that you choose for your logical system.

Logic is just symbol manipulation! How you manipulate those symbols, why you manipulate those symbols and the rules according to which you choose to manipulate those symbols are ENTIRELY UP TO YOU!

There is no difference between logic and metalogic! That's literally how meta-circular evaluators work work! They use the same host AND meta language!

If you cannot do this, use some explicit system's rules that you find breaks those metalogical rules.

There! Are! No! Metalogical! Rules!

The Universal Turing Machine is a blank slate UNTIL you program it.

That is, show me directly that you know what you are talking about by LISTING a set of propositions, definitions, and undefined terms of a specific logic that you are implying works. Then I can point to where those metalogical rules still require existing.

The meta-logical rule you are appealing to is called "choice"!

I choose the propositions.
I choose the definitions.
I choose the terms.
I choose the rules.
I choose the axioms.
I choose the operators.

I already KNOW what you mean and my own attempt at setting up what you think is something that I am doing. I only have to use those given laws

There are no given laws! Humane MAKE laws.

[Skepdick]

Note that IF you can use some program,...any program, on a computer that is founded on consistent logic, means that there is a real TRANSLATION that occurs when compiling or interpreting a program. You cannot USE such a system to PROVE a system can exist without consistency because having such a program implies necessarily that a compiled machine code based on consistent logic can always be found.

You are still missing the point by about a solar system or 10000.

The human-defined notions of "consistency" and "inconsistency" are completely arbitrary. Like all human definitions - it's possible that the definition is incoherent/inconsistent/self-contradictory! And it is! You are simply expressing some or other judgment about the properties of a system.

There's no need to "prove that the system exists" - the system is right before your eyes.

Whatever you think "consistency" or "inconsistency" is it is necessarily a human judgment ABOUT the system, not an inherent property OF the system.

Because the system is just obeying physics and making shit appear on the screen.

[Scott Mayers]

Whatever you think "consistency" or "inconsistency" is it is necessarily a human judgment ABOUT the system, not an inherent property OF the system.

Because the system is just obeying physics and making shit appear on the screen.

If anything 'obeys' does it follow what it obeys consistently? You ARE referring to laws of physics as a system itself.

[Skepdick]

If anything 'obeys' does it follow what it obeys consistently? You ARE referring to laws of physics as a system itself.

I have no fucking idea what that even means.

What measurement/experiment do you propose so that we can distinguish the two cases?

How would you tell apart if something obeys the laws of physics consistently from something which obeys the laws of physics inconsistently?

What does "inconsistent" obedience to physical laws look like?
How is it different from consistent obedience of "inconsistent" laws?

I am mentioning the physics laws vaguely and in passing - merely to point out that the symbol-manipulation system I am showing you does what it does, according to the symbol-manipulation rules that I have DESIGNED.

The system obeys MY rules.
My rules "obey" reality - by virtue of being real!

The underlying hardware architecture/electrical engineering/transistors/logic gates underneath it is absolutely moot! The system is Turing-complete - it's universal.

[Skepdick]

If anything 'obeys' does it follow what it obeys consistently? You ARE referring to laws of physics as a system itself.

Your rant actually reminds me of the stupidity of quantum physicists when they keep insisting that quantum physics is "weird and intuitive", or ascribing some or other adjective (like "consistent") to it. It's the completely wrong mindset to approach the field with! ALL adjectives are human judgments, so if you care about any such philosophical notions of "objectivity" it will do you good to abandon as many adjectives as you can from your vocabulary while you strive for objectivity.

About the only useful adjective you ought to be using to describe reality is "normal" - it's your understanding that needs fixing.

But rather than me misconstruing the author, I suggest you just read the original...

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7FSwbFp ... planations

It is always best to think of reality as perfectly normal. Since the beginning, not one unusual thing has ever happened.

[Terrapin Station]

Human applies idea called "bridge". Human assumes location of river is a constant. Reality decides it's a variable.

That's irrelevant to the fact that only a human, via their brain, can make an assessment about the applicability of their ideas.

[Skepdick]

That's irrelevant to the fact that only a human, via their brain, can make an assessment about the applicability of their ideas.

That's irrelevant to the fact that the assessment "My idea is applicable" is only a hypothesis. Pending verification and falsification.

Human: Applies bridge idea.
Reality: *changes*
Human: Fuck!

To paraphrase Donald Knuth "Beware of errors in my work; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."

Queue sophist: The idea was applicable to THAT problem. It's not applicable to THIS problem.
Human: It's the same problem you fucking twat, I need to cross to the other side of river!

[Skepdick]

Also, "just an echo chamber" would be a problem because?

Because it's an echo chamber... echo chamber... echo chamber... echo chamber...echo chamber!

Without feedback loops adaption is impossible. Failing to adapt is not a problem for Philosophical communities and organisations because?

There's the unmistakable mark of elitism in the fact that the Philosophical community assess its own work according to standards that just cannot be explained to lesser mortals.

As far as I am concerned Philosophy without technical input is sophistry, technical developments without philosophy end up solving problems nobody cares about.

[Terrapin Station]

That's irrelevant to the fact that only a human, via their brain, can make an assessment about the applicability of their ideas.

That's irrelevant to the fact that the assessment "My idea is applicable" is only a hypothesis. Pending verification and falsification.

Human: Applies bridge idea.
Reality: *changes*
Human: Fuck!

The last step is where the determination of the applicability of the idea occurs. That's a brain phenomenon.

[Terrapin Station]

Also, "just an echo chamber" would be a problem because?

Because it's an echo chamber... echo chamber... echo chamber... echo chamber...echo chamber!

Without feedback loops adaption is impossible. Failing to adapt is not a problem for Philosophical communities and organisations because?

What makes anything a problem or not is what an individual cares about, what they're interested in, what their preferences are, etc. Different people like/dislike different things.

There's the unmistakable mark of elitism in the fact that the Philosophical community assess its own work according to standards that just cannot be explained to lesser mortals.

It can be explained to/understood by anyone. But it requires an interest in it so that one actually immerses oneself in it and becomes very familiar with it. And to do it requires lots of practice, eagerness to learn how to do it, etc.

Think of it this way, could you teach a course about jazz music without having learned about jazz music, without having immersed yourself in it, its history, learning about the major works of the genre, etc.? And could you play it without an eagerness to learn how to play it, where you practice regularly, etc.?

[Skepdick]

What makes anything a problem or not is what an individual cares about, what they're interested in, what their preferences are, etc. Different people like/dislike different things.

Obviously, but in every instance of a "problem" the individual perceives a displeasing discrepancy between what is and what ought to be.

It can be explained to/understood by anyone. But it requires an interest in it so that one actually immerses oneself in it and becomes very familiar with it. And to do it requires lots of practice, eagerness to learn how to do it, etc.

Think of it this way, could you teach a course about jazz music without having learned about jazz music, without having immersed yourself in it, its history, learning about the major works of the genre, etc.? And could you play it without an eagerness to learn how to play it, where you practice regularly, etc.?

This analogy seems to indicate deep confusion on your part.

The quality of a Jazz musician's work is not assessed by their peers - it's certainly not assessed by people who are "equally or more experienced in Jazz, and other Jazz musicians never take the role of gatekeepers preventing another Jazz musician's work from being "published" should it fail to meet some unspecified criteria.

Jazz musicians get intrinsic feedback (I do this because it pleases me), and extrinsic feedback (people who listen to my music love my work).

So Jazz, unlike Philosophy, has external feedback.