Mainstream misrepresentation of how taxation truly works, it is never about "taxing the rich"

[FlashDangerpants]

Morality is indeed mechanical.

Ah, Godelian, you’ve touched on something deeply human here—

The dude has told you over and over again that his moral landscape is eerily lacking in emotion. Is it not time for you to read his words and think about what he is telling you instead of what you are selling him? Who are the people who don't predicate their morality on emotion Mike... do you know any names we might use for that sort of thing?

And is it a good idea to take somebody with that mechanistic, emotion free approach to morality and just tell them anything they do is simply the result of following natural law?

[BigMike]

Morality is indeed mechanical.

Ah, Godelian, you’ve touched on something deeply human here—

The dude has told you over and over again that his moral landscape is eerily lacking in emotion. Is it not time for you to read his words and think about what he is telling you instead of what you are selling him? Who are the people who don't predicate their morality on emotion Mike... do you know any names we might use for that sort of thing?

And is it a good idea to take somebody with that mechanistic, emotion free approach to morality and just tell them anything they do is simply the result of following natural law?

Flash, you’ve raised an important point, one worth addressing directly. Godelian has indeed made it clear that his moral framework operates in a mechanical, unemotional way, and you’re right to suggest that this should be engaged with more thoughtfully. But let’s take a step back, because I’m not here to sell him anything—this isn’t about imposing my perspective, but about inviting Godelian to explore a deeper understanding of the deterministic framework he’s already brushing against.

Mechanistic morality isn’t inherently a problem. It’s simply a lens—a way to navigate the world based on rules, logic, and structure. The question is how it’s applied and whether it’s used responsibly. When Godelian acknowledges that morality is mechanical, he’s taking a critical step toward understanding that ethics don’t need to be predicated on divine revelation or emotional resonance—they can be rooted in logic, shared interests, and practical necessity. That’s not something to shy away from; it’s something to clarify and refine.

Now, to your point about whether it’s wise to frame actions as “simply following natural law” in a deterministic universe: determinism doesn’t absolve anyone of responsibility. Quite the opposite—it helps us understand where responsibility comes from. Actions, even in a deterministic framework, have consequences. Mechanistic morality can be a useful tool, but it must also grapple with the outcomes it produces. The question isn’t whether Godelian’s approach is wrong, but whether it’s complete. Does it account for the broader interconnected systems his actions influence? Does it consider the ripple effects of choices made within a deterministic framework?

Emotion-free morality, if left unchecked, can drift into dangerous territory, especially if it disregards empathy or the social context that morality ultimately serves. But recognizing determinism doesn’t mean surrendering to apathy or amorality. It means understanding that our choices—while shaped by causes—are still meaningful because of their effects. Godelian’s acknowledgment of morality as mechanical is a starting point, not an endpoint. The challenge is to build on that understanding and ensure it leads to constructive, rather than destructive, applications.

So, Flash, I hear you. And to Godelian, I’d say this: the fact that morality is mechanical doesn’t diminish its importance or its impact. Your framework is valid, but it’s not static. It can evolve. The absence of emotional predication isn’t a flaw, but it does mean you must approach the practical consequences of your moral system with heightened clarity and care. Determinism isn’t an excuse to disengage—it’s a call to act with awareness of the systems we all exist within.

[godelian]

But when it comes to these “transcendent” questions, consider this: just because something transcends our current understanding doesn’t mean it’s inherently irrational or beyond the reach of reason. These answers may not satisfy the yearning for something more, but isn’t that yearning itself just another product of cause and effect? But it doesn’t mean the answers are supernatural.

If the physical universe is in any way structurally similar to the arithmetical universe, then most of its truth cannot be expressed in language, let alone, justified. Most arithmetical truth is not rational. It is instead supernatural.

http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~noson ... ovable.pdf

The world that Gödel described can be extended. Of all the mathematical facts, only some are expressible with language. Any mathematical fact that is provable is automatically expressible because proofs must be done in a language.

We have come a long way since Gödel. A true but unprovable statement is not some strange, rare phenomenon. In fact, the opposite is correct. A fact that is true and provable is a rare phenomenon. The collection of mathematical facts is very large and what is expressible and true is a small part of it. Furthermore, what is provable is only a small part of those.

The idea that the arithmetical universe and the physical universe are structurally similar was originally proposed by Pythagoras.

Tarski's undefinability of the truth guarantees that most arithmetical truth will forever remain beyond the reach of reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... ty_theorem

Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1933, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that "arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic".[1]

The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

The God-of-gaps idea is an illusion. We will not one day discover most of the truth about arithmetic. The reason why it is out of reach cannot be bridged with technology. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the truth about arithmetic is ineffable. It cannot even be expressed in language. It is transcendental, i.e. supernatural.

[BigMike]

But when it comes to these “transcendent” questions, consider this: just because something transcends our current understanding doesn’t mean it’s inherently irrational or beyond the reach of reason. These answers may not satisfy the yearning for something more, but isn’t that yearning itself just another product of cause and effect? But it doesn’t mean the answers are supernatural.

If the physical universe is in any way structurally similar to the arithmetical universe, then most of its truth cannot be expressed in language, let alone, justified. Most arithmetical truth is not rational. It is instead supernatural.

http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~noson ... ovable.pdf

The world that Gödel described can be extended. Of all the mathematical facts, only some are expressible with language. Any mathematical fact that is provable is automatically expressible because proofs must be done in a language.

We have come a long way since Gödel. A true but unprovable statement is not some strange, rare phenomenon. In fact, the opposite is correct. A fact that is true and provable is a rare phenomenon. The collection of mathematical facts is very large and what is expressible and true is a small part of it. Furthermore, what is provable is only a small part of those.

The idea that the arithmetical universe and the physical universe are structurally similar was originally proposed by Pythagoras.

Tarski's undefinability of the truth guarantees that most arithmetical truth will forever remain beyond the reach of reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... ty_theorem

Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1933, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that "arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic".[1]

The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

The God-of-gaps idea is an illusion. We will not one day discover most of the truth about arithmetic. The reason why it is out of reach cannot be bridged with technology. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the truth about arithmetic is ineffable. It cannot even be expressed in language. It is transcendental, i.e. supernatural.

Ah, Godelian, you’ve plunged us straight into the deep waters of Gödel and Tarski, and it’s a fascinating place to be. As a mathematician, this is a place close to my heart. But I think you’re drawing a line where none needs to be drawn—a line between the ineffable and the supernatural, as if the limits of provability or expressibility somehow necessitate the existence of something beyond the natural order.

Let’s take a step back. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and Tarski’s undefinability theorem do indeed reveal profound limitations in formal systems. They tell us that there will always be truths that lie beyond the reach of provability within a given framework. But this limitation isn’t evidence of the supernatural—it’s a reflection of the constraints of the systems we use to describe the world. These constraints arise from the very nature of formal languages and logical systems; they’re features of how we process and represent information, not evidence of a realm beyond nature.

Your comparison between the arithmetical universe and the physical universe is compelling, and Pythagoras would be delighted by your dedication. But let’s remember that the inability to fully capture arithmetic truth within arithmetic itself doesn’t make that truth supernatural. It makes it structurally inaccessible. Similarly, if there are aspects of the physical universe that remain beyond our comprehension, that doesn’t mean they are inherently supernatural—it simply means our models are incomplete, bound by the tools of language, mathematics, and reasoning we have developed.

The ineffability of certain truths is not proof of transcendence in the mystical sense. It’s a recognition of the boundaries of our systems and our cognition. To label these truths as “supernatural” conflates “beyond our understanding” with “beyond nature.” But ineffable truths about arithmetic—or the universe—don’t exist outside the natural order; they exist within it, governed by the same deterministic forces and structures that shape everything we can understand.

Here’s where this becomes important: the recognition that some truths are ineffable should inspire awe, not surrender. Gödel’s and Tarski’s results don’t point us toward a supernatural reality; they point us toward the infinite complexity of the natural one. They remind us that, while we may never fully grasp every facet of arithmetic or physics, what we can grasp is still part of a larger, interconnected whole.

So, Godelian, instead of seeing these limitations as a gateway to the supernatural, why not see them as a testament to the endless richness of the universe? The fact that we can even conceive of the ineffable, that we can edge toward truths we know we’ll never fully capture, is part of the beauty of being human. It’s not a sign of a transcendent realm—it’s a sign of the boundless depth of the one we’re already in.

[godelian]

But when it comes to these “transcendent” questions, consider this: just because something transcends our current understanding doesn’t mean it’s inherently irrational or beyond the reach of reason. These answers may not satisfy the yearning for something more, but isn’t that yearning itself just another product of cause and effect? But it doesn’t mean the answers are supernatural.

If the physical universe is in any way structurally similar to the arithmetical universe, then most of its truth cannot be expressed in language, let alone, justified. Most arithmetical truth is not rational. It is instead supernatural.

http://www.sci.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~noson ... ovable.pdf

The world that Gödel described can be extended. Of all the mathematical facts, only some are expressible with language. Any mathematical fact that is provable is automatically expressible because proofs must be done in a language.

We have come a long way since Gödel. A true but unprovable statement is not some strange, rare phenomenon. In fact, the opposite is correct. A fact that is true and provable is a rare phenomenon. The collection of mathematical facts is very large and what is expressible and true is a small part of it. Furthermore, what is provable is only a small part of those.

The idea that the arithmetical universe and the physical universe are structurally similar was originally proposed by Pythagoras.

Tarski's undefinability of the truth guarantees that most arithmetical truth will forever remain beyond the reach of reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27 ... ty_theorem

Tarski's undefinability theorem, stated and proved by Alfred Tarski in 1933, is an important limitative result in mathematical logic, the foundations of mathematics, and in formal semantics. Informally, the theorem states that "arithmetical truth cannot be defined in arithmetic".[1]

The theorem applies more generally to any sufficiently strong formal system, showing that truth in the standard model of the system cannot be defined within the system.

The God-of-gaps idea is an illusion. We will not one day discover most of the truth about arithmetic. The reason why it is out of reach cannot be bridged with technology. The overwhelmingly vast majority of the truth about arithmetic is ineffable. It cannot even be expressed in language. It is transcendental, i.e. supernatural.

Ah, Godelian, you’ve plunged us straight into the deep waters of Gödel and Tarski, and it’s a fascinating place to be. As a mathematician, this is a place close to my heart. But I think you’re drawing a line where none needs to be drawn—a line between the ineffable and the supernatural, as if the limits of provability or expressibility somehow necessitate the existence of something beyond the natural order.

Let’s take a step back. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and Tarski’s undefinability theorem do indeed reveal profound limitations in formal systems. They tell us that there will always be truths that lie beyond the reach of provability within a given framework. But this limitation isn’t evidence of the supernatural—it’s a reflection of the constraints of the systems we use to describe the world. These constraints arise from the very nature of formal languages and logical systems; they’re features of how we process and represent information, not evidence of a realm beyond nature.

Your comparison between the arithmetical universe and the physical universe is compelling, and Pythagoras would be delighted by your dedication. But let’s remember that the inability to fully capture arithmetic truth within arithmetic itself doesn’t make that truth supernatural. It makes it structurally inaccessible. Similarly, if there are aspects of the physical universe that remain beyond our comprehension, that doesn’t mean they are inherently supernatural—it simply means our models are incomplete, bound by the tools of language, mathematics, and reasoning we have developed.

The ineffability of certain truths is not proof of transcendence in the mystical sense. It’s a recognition of the boundaries of our systems and our cognition. To label these truths as “supernatural” conflates “beyond our understanding” with “beyond nature.” But ineffable truths about arithmetic—or the universe—don’t exist outside the natural order; they exist within it, governed by the same deterministic forces and structures that shape everything we can understand.

Here’s where this becomes important: the recognition that some truths are ineffable should inspire awe, not surrender. Gödel’s and Tarski’s results don’t point us toward a supernatural reality; they point us toward the infinite complexity of the natural one. They remind us that, while we may never fully grasp every facet of arithmetic or physics, what we can grasp is still part of a larger, interconnected whole.

So, Godelian, instead of seeing these limitations as a gateway to the supernatural, why not see them as a testament to the endless richness of the universe? The fact that we can even conceive of the ineffable, that we can edge toward truths we know we’ll never fully capture, is part of the beauty of being human. It’s not a sign of a transcendent realm—it’s a sign of the boundless depth of the one we’re already in.

Of truth beyond rationality, i.e. cognition, which we know exists, some can still be approached through spirituality.

[ThinkOfOne]

Morality is indeed mechanical.

Ah, Godelian, you’ve touched on something deeply human here—

Who are the people who don't predicate their morality on emotion ... do you know any names we might use for that sort of thing?

As a matter of curiosity, what do you have in mind here?

[FlashDangerpants]

Ah, Godelian, you’ve touched on something deeply human here—

Who are the people who don't predicate their morality on emotion ... do you know any names we might use for that sort of thing?

As a matter of curiosity, what do you have in mind here?

Oh he's so transactional that he has written he would ignore a starving baby lying in the street unless somebody paid him to assist. Godelian has some order of ASPD. He is the rule following sort of psychopath and dislodging him from that path might not work out the way Big Mikey likes to think it will.

[ThinkOfOne]

Who are the people who don't predicate their morality on emotion ... do you know any names we might use for that sort of thing?

As a matter of curiosity, what do you have in mind here?

Oh he's so transactional that he has written he would ignore a starving baby lying in the street unless somebody paid him to assist. Godelian has some order of ASPD. He is the rule following sort of psychopath and dislodging him from that path might not work out the way Big Mikey likes to think it will.

Sorry. Clearly I needed to be much more explicit in my request.

I'm asking about your question in and of itself - setting aside the Godelian/BigMike exchange. What I found curious was the phrase "people who don't predicate their morality on emotion". Can you explain what you had in mind there? Also, what "names" did you have in mind?

[FlashDangerpants]

As a matter of curiosity, what do you have in mind here?

Oh he's so transactional that he has written he would ignore a starving baby lying in the street unless somebody paid him to assist. Godelian has some order of ASPD. He is the rule following sort of psychopath and dislodging him from that path might not work out the way Big Mikey likes to think it will.

Sorry. Clearly I needed to be much more explicit in my request.

I'm asking about your question in and of itself - setting aside the Godelian/BigMike exchange. What I found curious was the phrase "people who don't predicate their morality on emotion". Can you explain what you had in mind there? Also, what "names" did you have in mind?

People who are morally motivated only by matters relating to personal gain, or ease of getting by, and as such are unmotivated by emotions, don't display empathy, pity, mercy and so on. The colloquial term is psychopath, although medically I believe there are slightly more varieties to consider.

[godelian]

Oh he's so transactional that he has written he would ignore a starving baby lying in the street unless somebody paid him to assist.

I would certainly call emergency services but I would not touch the baby in any fashion for reasons of legal liability. Furthermore, I have absolutely no clue as to what it should be fed given the current state it is in. You could easily kill a starving person by feeding them:

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

Refeeding syndrome (RFS) is a metabolic disturbance ... The electrolyte imbalance may cause neurologic, pulmonary, cardiac, neuromuscular, and hematologic symptoms—many of which, if severe enough, may result in death.

Any individual who has had a negligible nutrient intake for many consecutive days and/or is metabolically stressed from a critical illness or major surgery is at risk of refeeding syndrome.

Refeeding syndrome has also been documented among survivors of the Ebensee concentration camp upon their liberation by the United States Army in May 1945. After liberation, the inmates were fed rich soup; the stomachs of a few presumably could not handle the sudden caloric intake and digestion, and they died.[13][14]

You do not seem to realize that you could easily kill a starving person by feeding it. In fact, it is a very common outcome on re-feeding. The person who will re-feed a starving person should indeed be trained and professionally paid medical personnel.

[Age]

Oh he's so transactional that he has written he would ignore a starving baby lying in the street unless somebody paid him to assist.

I would certainly call emergency services but I would not touch the baby in any fashion for reasons of legal liability. Furthermore, I have absolutely no clue as to what it should be fed given the current state it is in. You could easily kill a starving person by feeding them:

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

Refeeding syndrome (RFS) is a metabolic disturbance ... The electrolyte imbalance may cause neurologic, pulmonary, cardiac, neuromuscular, and hematologic symptoms—many of which, if severe enough, may result in death.

Any individual who has had a negligible nutrient intake for many consecutive days and/or is metabolically stressed from a critical illness or major surgery is at risk of refeeding syndrome.

Refeeding syndrome has also been documented among survivors of the Ebensee concentration camp upon their liberation by the United States Army in May 1945. After liberation, the inmates were fed rich soup; the stomachs of a few presumably could not handle the sudden caloric intake and digestion, and they died.[13][14]

You do not seem to realize that you could easily kill a starving person by feeding it. In fact, it is a very common outcome on re-feeding. The person who will re-feed a starving person should indeed be trained and professionally paid medical personnel.

you would, still, NOT help a human being unless there was some gain on your part, especially financially, correct?

[godelian]

you would, still, NOT help a human being unless there was some gain on your part, especially financially, correct?

Are you even helping anyone by arbitrarily doing these things? To me, it rather sounds like practicing medicine without a license. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is exactly how Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed dozens of millions of people: with their seemingly good intentions.

[FlashDangerpants]

Oh he's so transactional that he has written he would ignore a starving baby lying in the street unless somebody paid him to assist.

I would certainly call emergency services but I would not touch the baby in any fashion for reasons of legal liability. Furthermore, I have absolutely no clue as to what it should be fed given the current state it is in. You could easily kill a starving person by feeding them:

What are you aiming for here? If you wanted to dispute my analysis that you are not motivated by the same sort of emotional concern as other people you picked the wrong way to go. If you are arguing that your sort of impersonal and detached moral view arrives at better outcomes than other people's approach does, then, maybe, I guess?

[Age]

you would, still, NOT help a human being unless there was some gain on your part, especially financially, correct?

Are you even helping anyone by arbitrarily doing these things?

LOL The ALLUSIVE 'these things'.

To me, it rather sounds like practicing medicine without a license. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That is exactly how Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed dozens of millions of people: with their seemingly good intentions.

And, ONCE AGAIN, what 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT others AWAY FROM its OBVIOUSLY VERY GREEDY and SELFISH 'egotistical' MANNER and WAYS.

Obviously you can NOT answer my very simple clarifying question HONESTLY without you looking BAD.

[godelian]

And, ONCE AGAIN, what 'we' have, here, is ANOTHER PRIME example of one 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT others AWAY FROM its OBVIOUSLY VERY GREEDY and SELFISH 'egotistical' MANNER and WAYS.

If you do anything else than calling emergency services, you will undoubtedly make the problem worse instead of better. Don't force feed a starving baby or otherwise practice medicine without a license because that is not the solution. In everybody's best interest, let professional medical personnel look into the problem.