Resolution of the question as to whether math is discovered or invented

[Skepdick]

You are still imagining that it isn't...right now. And one thought transforms into another.

But I am curious. You speak of and elevate "practicality" and yet come here to insult everyone and then claim everyone is wrong...which is quite impractical. Why? What is your goal exactly?

If you are working from premises to conclusions; and not from conclusions to premises you are simply not a practical person.

If you want to start; not end with definitions - you are doing it backwards too.

My goal is to show you that your method doesn't work.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are still imagining that it isn't...right now. And one thought transforms into another.

But I am curious. You speak of and elevate "practicality" and yet come here to insult everyone and then claim everyone is wrong...which is quite impractical. Why? What is your goal exactly?

My goal is to get you to start at the other end of the thought process.

Why are you defining?

You wanted a definition. So I gave you one. If you didn't want one...I wouldn't give you one.

But it is beyond that.

Many people are weak and need definitions to have something to hold onto for the world to make sense. You may not need them. I may not need them. But there are weak people who do and as time progresses and this "raft" gets them across the river then they can leave it behind...metaphorically speaking of course.

Definitions help provide a raft or ladder for the moment. Once the obstacle is overcome they are not necessary anymore.

Perfecting rhetoric and language is an abstract means of building a raft or ladder or house for the psyches of people.

I am here to practice. That is all.

But the question you ask falls back on you as computer programming is defining. So I now ask you "why are you defining"?

[Skepdick]

You are still imagining that it isn't...right now. And one thought transforms into another.

But I am curious. You speak of and elevate "practicality" and yet come here to insult everyone and then claim everyone is wrong...which is quite impractical. Why? What is your goal exactly?

My goal is to get you to start at the other end of the thought process.

Why are you defining?

You wanted a definition. So I gave you one. If you didn't want one...I wouldn't give you one.

But it is beyond that.

Many people are weak and need definitions to have something to hold onto for the world to make sense. You may not need them. I may not need them. But there are weak people who do and as time progresses and this "raft" gets them across the river then they can leave it behind...metaphorically speaking of course.

Definitions help provide a raft or ladder for the moment. Once the obstacle is overcome they are not necessary anymore.

Perfecting rhetoric and language is an abstract means of building a raft or ladder or house for the psyches of people.

I am here to practice. That is all.

But the question you ask falls back on you as computer programming is defining. So I now ask you "why are you defining"?

Why are you asking?

[Eodnhoj7]

My goal is to get you to start at the other end of the thought process.

Why are you defining?

You wanted a definition. So I gave you one. If you didn't want one...I wouldn't give you one.

But it is beyond that.

Many people are weak and need definitions to have something to hold onto for the world to make sense. You may not need them. I may not need them. But there are weak people who do and as time progresses and this "raft" gets them across the river then they can leave it behind...metaphorically speaking of course.

Definitions help provide a raft or ladder for the moment. Once the obstacle is overcome they are not necessary anymore.

Perfecting rhetoric and language is an abstract means of building a raft or ladder or house for the psyches of people.

I am here to practice. That is all.

But the question you ask falls back on you as computer programming is defining. So I now ask you "why are you defining"?

Why are you asking?

Because you criticize philosophers for definition when computer programming is purely definition. I am curious about your thought process.

[Skepdick]

Because you criticize philosophers for definition when computer programming is purely definition. I am curious about your thought process.

The teleology is not purely definition.

The teleology is time-saving through automation.

We define to save time.
Philosophers waste time defining.

Programming definitions serve efficiency; philosophical definitions often serve themselves.

Philosophical circularity == infinite time sink == bad.

[Eodnhoj7]

Because you criticize philosophers for definition when computer programming is purely definition. I am curious about your thought process.

The teleology is not purely definition.

The teleology is time-saving through automation.

We define to save time.
Philosophers waste time defining.

Programming definitions serve efficiency; philosophical definitions often serve themselves.

Philosophical circularity == infinite time sink == bad.

Automation is the transformation of physical material, it is redefinition of the physical. Saving time is defining how time transforms...it is distinction making at the core.

Philosopher's define the very thing you seek to manipulate, time. You are fundamentally seeking to manipulate a concept using concepts.

Efficiency is a relative construct based around desires and as such is irrational in many respects, you working to be efficient undermines efficiency as the labor of existence is inevitable... if not on one thing than another. Efficiency is a philosophical stance, a perspective that is relative to want and impulse.

Regardless, you can ignore the above if you wish, so you achieve the apex of efficiency...then what?

[Skepdick]

Automation is the transformation of physical material, it is redefinition of the physical. Saving time is defining how time transforms...it is distinction making at the core.

OK. Why are you defining it that way? What purpose did that serve? Now that you've sank time into it - what yields do you expect?

Philosopher's define the very thing you seek to manipulate, time.

Time is a resource. The more you try to define it - the more of it you waste.

You are fundamentally seeking to manipulate a concept using concepts.

No, I am fundamentally seeking to exploit time.

Regardless, you can ignore the above if you wish, so you achieve the apex of efficiency...then what?

There's no apex.

[Eodnhoj7]

Automation is the transformation of physical material, it is redefinition of the physical. Saving time is defining how time transforms...it is distinction making at the core.

OK. Why are you defining it that way? What purpose did that serve? Now that you've sank time into it - what yields do you expect?

Philosopher's define the very thing you seek to manipulate, time.

Time is a resource. The more you try to define it - the more of it you waste.

You are fundamentally seeking to manipulate a concept using concepts.

No, I am fundamentally seeking to exploit time.

Regardless, you can ignore the above if you wish, so you achieve the apex of efficiency...then what?

There's no apex.

So automation does not define the physical world? It is not the redefinition of matter?

Understanding a resource allows one to better use it. Take gold for example, in understanding its nature there are more options in how it is used.

Time is a concept, how to exploit requires a framework of interpretation, a means of action...all these things are definitions, or one can say distinctions.

If there is no apex to efficiency, and there is unlimited potential by default than there is no point in being efficient because what ever efficiency one has it is never enough. You are creating a futile cycle.

[Skepdick]

So automation does not define the physical world?

I have no idea what that even means. Nothing defines the physical world - it just is.

It is not the redefinition of matter?

Matter is just an abstract idea. A historical artifact of substance ontologies.

Understanding a resource allows one to better use it. Take gold for example, in understanding its nature there are more options in how it is used.

I am terribly fond of Munger's philosophy. Avoiding stupidity is much easier than seeking brilliance.

Time is a concept

It's not. Attempting to conceptualize it, however is a huge waste of time.

If there is no apex to efficiency, and there is unlimited potential by default than there is no point in being efficient because what ever efficiency one has it is never enough. You are creating a futile cycle.

OK... so you keep trying to define "time"; and I'll just keep delegating my agency to humans; or machines.

According to you the futility of both tasks is equal.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Straw man. Except for 'math' that doesn't map to nature, it's all discovered.

[Skepdick]

Straw man. Except for 'math' that doesn't map to nature, it's all discovered.

Oh well, except for that math.

Tell me where you found the number 0 in nature.

[Eodnhoj7]

So automation does not define the physical world?

I have no idea what that even means. Nothing defines the physical world - it just is.

It is not the redefinition of matter?

Matter is just an abstract idea. A historical artifact of substance ontologies.

Understanding a resource allows one to better use it. Take gold for example, in understanding its nature there are more options in how it is used.

I am terribly fond of Munger's philosophy. Avoiding stupidity is much easier than seeking brilliance.

Time is a concept

It's not. Attempting to conceptualize it, however is a huge waste of time.

If there is no apex to efficiency, and there is unlimited potential by default than there is no point in being efficient because what ever efficiency one has it is never enough. You are creating a futile cycle.

OK... so you keep trying to define "time"; and I'll just keep saving mine.

According to you the futility of both tasks is equal.

The physical world is a distinction. It contrasts the distinction of the abstract.

If matter is an abstraction, fair enough, but that leaves all physical things being abstractions and yet you claim the physical is undefinable.

If time is not a concept, then point to it physically. If it is not physical either then it is nothing and your efforts are to manipulate something that does not exist. You claim attempting to conceptualize it is a waste of time, so if that is the case you are attempting to manipulate something undefined...nothing effectively.

What I am pointing to is obvious, you working endlessly for efficiency and yet in the continual labor you undermine yourself because you are working regardless. You accuse philosophy of futility and yet you struggle for a futile never ending loop and call yourself intelligent for it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Straw man. Except for 'math' that doesn't map to nature, it's all discovered.

Oh well, except for that math.

Tell me where you found the number 0 in nature.

Spontaneous change where the change of one state into another is a coming to being from potentiality (nothingness, the absence of actuality).

[Skepdick]

The physical world is a distinction. It contrasts the distinction of the abstract.

If matter is an abstraction, fair enough, but that leaves all physical things being abstractions and yet you claim the physical is undefinable.

OK. Why are you drawing this distinction? Why are you abstracting? What purpose did that serve? Now that you've sank time into it - what yields do you expect?

If time is not a concept, then point to it physically. If it is not physical either then it is nothing and your efforts are to manipulate something that does not exist.

And yet you wasted it making this point

You claim attempting to conceptualize it is a waste of time, so if that is the case you are attempting to manipulate something undefined...nothing effectively.

That was another wasteful application of your thinking apparatus...

What I am pointing to is obvious, you working endlessly for efficiency and yet in the continual labor you undermine yourself because you are working regardless. You accuse philosophy of futility and yet you struggle for a futile never ending loop and call yourself intelligent for it.

Well, if you can't tell the difference. That's OK

Keep doing what you are doing.

[Skepdick]

Straw man. Except for 'math' that doesn't map to nature, it's all discovered.

Oh well, except for that math.

Tell me where you found the number 0 in nature.

Spontaneous change where the change of one state into another is a coming to being from potentiality (nothingness, the absence of actuality).

Back to vomiting tokens I see.