Philosophy Now Forum

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:26 am OK dimwit, make up your mind.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:24 am No, we aren't speaking about getting things done and no one cares about your line of work.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:15 am 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?

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:27 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:24 am 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

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:34 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:28 amNo. That's pragmatic thinking for people who understand COMPUTATIONAL 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

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:37 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:34 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:38 am 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.
Goes also way over your head how little quantum behaviour has to do with the logic of general philosophical thinking.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:39 am Arguing with mathematical isomorphism in this context is for retards who don't understand what isomorphism is.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:40 am You offer no pragmatic alternative so I have no other means of reasoning.

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

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

It's the law of identity.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:47 am No. Two rocks aren't the same as the number 2. (In case you didn't know.)

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:50 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 9:47 am 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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:03 am Total strawman, comparing the rocks/whatever to each other has nothing to do with it.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:03 am I was talking about concrete objects like rocks vs abstract "objects" like numbers.

Are you genuinely incapable of processing this?

TimeSeeker wrote:
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

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:09 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
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 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:06 am

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:03 am 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!

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:03 am 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:18 am 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).