New paradox - escape room paradox

[Seeker of Veritas]

Phil8659 , you look like a bot

You seek to transcend truth, when you are not even capable of comprehending or being true to begin with, That is called escapism. If you cannot deal with objective reality, you are simply lost in your own delusions and will spout any bull shit to defend it.

Reality is richer than any artificial semantics, why do you want to be so limited in your little world?
And yes, in science we end with definitions, not start with them.

[Phil8659]

Phil8659 , you look like a bot

You seek to transcend truth, when you are not even capable of comprehending or being true to begin with, That is called escapism. If you cannot deal with objective reality, you are simply lost in your own delusions and will spout any bull shit to defend it.

Reality is richer than any artificial semantics, why do you want to be so limited in your little world?
And yes, in science we end with definitions, not start with them.

I like your little smilies, what are you 5, you sure talk like it, you cannot reason your way out of a freaking paper bag.

[Age]

cool, however, I don't swim in my coffee, or take advice from people who defer to authorities as an excuse for not being able to master the fundamentals of grammar.

Well if every other person fails at grammar and every grammar book is wrong, and you're the only person in history to get it right, then maybe you're the one who doesn't get it. You also believe that you've been tasked by extraterrestrials to figure things out, correct?

(Also, people drink the coffee, they don't swim in it.)

Deflecting from answering simple questions is the resort of the idiot.

Does this claim exist when you "yourself" deflect from answering simple questions?

[Phil8659]

Well if every other person fails at grammar and every grammar book is wrong, and you're the only person in history to get it right, then maybe you're the one who doesn't get it. You also believe that you've been tasked by extraterrestrials to figure things out, correct?

(Also, people drink the coffee, they don't swim in it.)

Deflecting from answering simple questions is the resort of the idiot.

Does this claim exist when you "yourself" deflect from answering simple questions "atla"?

I would think that a professional at being able not to answer a question, like yourself, should know the answer to that.

[Age]

Deflecting from answering simple questions is the resort of the idiot.

Does this claim exist when you "yourself" deflect from answering simple questions "atla"?

I would think that a professional at being able not to answer a question, like yourself, should know the answer to that.

LOL SHOW WHERE I have been ASKED A QUESTION, and I have NOT ANSWER it.

What WILL VERY CLEARLY COME TO LIGHT is that 'this one' has made ANOTHER CLAIM, with NOTHING that can NOR WILL back up and support its CLAIM.

However, if it does happen to PRODUCE A QUESTION that I HAVE BEEN ASKED, which I HAVE NOT, YET, ANSWERED, then GREAT. I WILL THEN HAVE SOME thing TO LOOK AT, and ANSWER, FOR it, and FOR the rest of the readers, here.

[Age]

Deflecting from answering simple questions is the resort of the idiot.

Does this claim exist when you "yourself" deflect from answering simple questions "atla"?

I would think that a professional at being able not to answer a question, like yourself, should know the answer to that.

'This' coming FROM 'the one' that 'I' have ASKED NUMEROUS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO, which it has NOT ANSWERED IS QUITE HUMOROUS, ACTUALLY.

[Age]

Hi all! I would like to offer you my paradox, close in spirit to the Sleeping Beauty paradox.
Bob is given a condition - he will be placed in a room that can be green or orange.
Then he will be taken out of the room, where he can return. If he returns to the green room, he will receive a million dollars, if to the orange one, then ten million dollars will be taken from him. But there is a nuance, if Bob leaves the orange room, then his memory, behavior and confidence are changed as if he left the green room. The experiment is conducted once in Bob's life.
Initial condition - Bob found himself in a green room. How should he act? Bob's thoughts
Thought 1 - I am in the green room, so I just need to leave and return
Thought 2 - if I leave, then at the same time I cannot be sure that I did not leave the orange room, so I cannot return. (let's assume that our Bob is extremely risk-averse)
Thought 3 - I can now pump myself up with drugs that will pull me back in regardless of my will when I leave, and that will be a win, and I'm lucky that I am in the green room and not the orange one, then I would definitely be finished
Thought 4 - what's stopping me from coming back without drugs?
Thought 4 contradicts thought 2, although they are both true.
Paradox

Which definition of the 'paradox' word are you even meant to be using, here, exactly?

Also, what 'we' can clearly see, here, is just how 'monetary orientated' 'these people' had become. Just about every view 'these people' had in Life revolved around 'money', and thus their acquired 'love of money' was very, very obvious.

[Age]

Hi all! I would like to offer you my paradox, close in spirit to the Sleeping Beauty paradox.
Bob is given a condition - he will be placed in a room that can be green or orange.
Then he will be taken out of the room, where he can return. If he returns to the green room, he will receive a million dollars, if to the orange one, then ten million dollars will be taken from him. But there is a nuance, if Bob leaves the orange room, then his memory, behavior and confidence are changed as if he left the green room. The experiment is conducted once in Bob's life.
Initial condition - Bob found himself in a green room. How should he act? Bob's thoughts
Thought 1 - I am in the green room, so I just need to leave and return
Thought 2 - if I leave, then at the same time I cannot be sure that I did not leave the orange room, so I cannot return. (let's assume that our Bob is extremely risk-averse)
Thought 3 - I can now pump myself up with drugs that will pull me back in regardless of my will when I leave, and that will be a win, and I'm lucky that I am in the green room and not the orange one, then I would definitely be finished
Thought 4 - what's stopping me from coming back without drugs?
Thought 4 contradicts thought 2, although they are both true.
Paradox

Easy to answer. Very easy. As every system of grammar is effected by binary recursion, it is impossible to actually state what you call a paradox, without the whole statement be simply a sign of illiteracy.

You wrote some kind of word salad) I am a physicist, can you explain yourself more clearly?

If it could, then it will not.

What "phil8659" will keep repeating is nothing more than, 'Every system of grammar is effected by binary recursion', and if you do not understand 'this', then you are stupid and/or illiterate. "phil8659" will also tell you that if you do not understand what it has, supposedly, 'worked out', then you are, again, illiterate, and/or stupid.

[Age]

Easy to answer. Very easy. As every system of grammar is effected by binary recursion, it is impossible to actually state what you call a paradox, without the whole statement be simply a sign of illiteracy.

You wrote some kind of word salad) I am a physicist, can you explain yourself more clearly?
Step 1 Imagine yourself in the place of the subject of this thought experiment
Step 2 What optimal strategy of behavior would you choose?
Step 3 Could you also reason like Bob, and if not, what seems incorrect to you?
Step 4 If all of Bob's thoughts are correct, did you see a contradiction?

Word salad? Grammar is based on the ability to form a convention of names, There is no magic it it.

Yet you keep proving, over and over, that you are not able to form a convention of names, when you are asked to back up, support, and prove your claim/s, here.

Try to draw, using simple geometry you supposed ideas, or program a computer without pre-deterministic algorithms. Binary information processing is expressed exactly four different ways, as in Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry. If you actually believe that you are making sense, Write it out inn simple arithmetic.

Once again, you just 're-write' more or the less the EXACT SAME thing/s, while expecting some thing to happen.

Show 'us' if you are ABLE TO write your OWN what others call 'word salad' , here, in 'simple arithmetic', as you tell or suggest others do. That is; if you actually believe that you are making sense.

In other words JUST DO EXACTLY what you CLAIM you CAN DO, and SHOW 'us' HOW TO DO it, EXACTLY.

You, sir are illiterate.

AGAIN, 'this' is about ALL 'this one' WILL TELL you, here.

Binary recursion can only produce a binary result, or as Aristotle said, assertion and denial. If you cannot do that, as he noted, you can not reason any better than a vegetable.

Which is EXACTLY what you LAUGHINGLY KEEP PROVING over and over, again and again, here.

I formalize Geometry as a grammar, you are welcome to use my work. You can draw any computer with it.

AGAIN, 'this' is just absolute 'word salad', as some call 'your words, writings, and claims', here.

[Age]

A real scientist does not ask for an opinion about anything. A true scientist functions through testing and repeatability. Now, we have four basic binary grammar systems, if one cannot say the same about the same, in each system of grammar, or at least in, as written long ago, two or more of them, then they have their judgment from the authority over words, which is grammar systems, not opinions.

Every grammar system is founded upon the principle of memory management in order to acquire predictive results. If you even know the fundaments of grammar, you know for certain, as Plato and Aristotle asserted, binary recursion cannot possibly contradict itself. therefore what appears to be a paradox is simply a grammatical mistake, in this case, several of them.

Here 'we' have another one who does not yet even know what the word 'paradox' means nor is even referring to, exactly.

Thus, 'this' means that 'this one' is illiterate, and 'we' know what 'this' makes 'this one', here, really.

Those who claim that language and grammar fall short of the job, are simply railing at themselves for being stupid. A one to one correspondence, faithfully followed, cannot fail.
At the foundation of every system of grammar is the simple ability to count.

But, unfortunately for 'this one' is not yet able to 'count', here, nor to always even just write grammatically Correct statements and sentences.

[Age]

Try this out.

This sentence is false.
Is it a paradox, or is it grammatically incorrect?

That 'that sentence' is the only one you keep referring back to shows and proves just how little you really have, here.

Also, what does 'that sentence' have to be ONLY one of those two, ONLY?

What 'that sentence' ACTUALLY IS is DIFFERENT than those two ONLY options.

When you Write, "this sentence" does the sentence actually exist? It is called a tense error, not a paradox. When you read a sentence, you read it as written, even temporally. There was no one to one correspondence to begin with.

you people obviously do NOT always read sentences as they are written.

So, when you write anything, you can say, have I been consistent in establishing a factual one-to-one correspondence between noun and verb? Because if you are sure you did, you can then write it in arithmetic, algebra and geometry.

Since you very rarely consistent in establishing one-to-one correspondence between any thing, this would WHY you are NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY thing written in arithmetic, algebra, and geometry, here.

This sentence is false, is written A = -A, which is gibberish.

YET you offered ONLY two other choices, ONLY, to "seeker of veritas", here.

So, WHY did you do this, EXACTLY?

[Age]

Nothing worse than sentences without any verbs or with hidden verbs. Sheer horror, a mockery of binary recursion.

Then again, what about ternary recursion.. verbs, nouns and adjectives.. the method of a brighter future?

Tell me, As noun is to limit, a verb to the relative difference within the limits, i.e., relative and its correlatives.
What third man, as Aristotle pointed out cannot possibly exist, are you speaking about?
Grammar is based on a one-to-one correspondence, recursion is achieved by the ability to intelligibly parse information. Noun, container equals (noun and verb). Tom is a cat, or the definitive sentence. there is no end, or nothing which is grouped otherwise. So, Educate Plato and Aristotle for us and explain this third man idea of yours.

An operand or operation is not a new part of speech.
Tom is a cat.
Tom is red.
therefore,
Tom is a red cat.
or again,
Red Tom is a cat.

In binary, you have four ways to establish a one to one correspondence, add assertion and denial, etc.,
You seem to drift off into mysticism rather easily.

As binary produces Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, What system of grammar are you trying to use?
The Third man Grammar is as real as the Third Man.

You used the word adjective, are you implying that Common Grammar differs from itself? That binary is not binary?

Think about this, in Arithmetic, or Algebra or Geometry, does a word change its part of speech relative to its geographical location in a sentence, or in fact, are there no factually correct grammar books today>
Is it possible, that words violate a one to one correspondence based on geographical location as taught today?

AGAIN, what 'we' have, here, is another of what 'this one' calls 'gibberish'.

[Age]

A person who cannot distinguish the difference between a noun and a verb, their intelligible foundation, but only is capable of parroting whatever nonsense they like, is not even worth talking to.

AGAIN, 'this one's' 'superiority complex' OVER EVERY one, here, is DRIVING and has CONTROL OVER 'this one'.

And, for those who cannot do math. How do you get to 3, say a tertiary computer. Not by binary progression, as in simple arithmetic, or by magic?

Information parsing is based on a simple fact, we can parse a thing, setting it as a unit, or we can parse things putting them into a group. Without these two concepts at the foundation of information processing, we would not have the ability to parse information at all, destroying, as noted by Plato, Aristotle, and any other intelligent philosophy, we simply could not think, or even speak. This is a binary distinction.

Information processing is an intelligible, it does not allow any particular so called authority of claiming otherwise. Stop, go, stop, May as well argue with a light switch. When the fucking thing stops working, you shit can it.

Are you even AWARE of just how of your OWN sentences are 'grammatical Incorrect'?

[Age]

Information parsing is based on a simple fact, we can parse a thing, setting it as a unit, or we can parse things putting them into a group. Without these two concepts at the foundation of information processing, we would not have the ability to parse information at all, destroying, as noted by Plato, Aristotle, and any other intelligent philosophy, we simply could not think, or even speak. This is a binary distinction.

Groups are an additional abstraction layer. When we introduce groups, then the unit is simply a group of one. There is no actual binary distinction here, there are one vs two layers of abstractions, and one thing vs multiple things. You conflate these and create some kind of false dichotomy. You aren't very good at this.

Oh! look, a boundary has suddenly appeared in Harry Potter's Universe. We can now multiply, without limits!,
Wow, is that like memory foam?

your CLAIMS are ABSOLUTELY ABSURD and NONSENSE. But, then you go on to ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION in regards to your OWN GIBBERISH.

How is ANY one meant to LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS like the one you PROPOSED, here?

[Age]

Phil8659 , you look like a bot

You seek to transcend truth,

What would make you say and write such an ABSURD and IRRATIONAL CLAIM, here?

Even its OWN 'username' SAYS OTHERWISE.

when you are not even capable of comprehending or being true to begin with, That is called escapism. If you cannot deal with objective reality, you are simply lost in your own delusions and will spout any bull shit to defend it.

Will you TELL 'the readers', here, what the words, 'objective reality', MEAN, and/or are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

If no, then WHY NOT?