Philosophy Now Forum

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:43 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:39 pm

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. But let that pass. Just tell me, what are the symptoms of binary recursion being aged over 2400 years? Do we not have wrinkled and old binaries, Do they walk with a cane or use a wheelchair? How does an absolute become a relative? Obviously I am not talking about a relative of mine.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:53 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:49 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:43 pm
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. But let that pass. Just tell me, what are the symptoms of binary recursion being aged over 2400 years? Do we not have wrinkled and old binaries, Do they walk with a cane or use a wheelchair? How does an absolute become a relative? Obviously I am not talking about a relative of mine.

Again, there are no binary recursions in the natural world. You made the whole thing up.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:53 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:49 pm

Deflecting from answering simple questions is the resort of the idiot. But let that pass. Just tell me, what are the symptoms of binary recursion being aged over 2400 years? Do we not have wrinkled and old binaries, Do they walk with a cane or use a wheelchair? How does an absolute become a relative? Obviously I am not talking about a relative of mine.

Again, there are no binary recursions in the natural world. You made the whole thing up.

Well, did you get tired of convincing your computer of that? You must have lost it's respect too.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:58 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:55 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 6:53 pm
Again, there are no binary recursions in the natural world. You made the whole thing up.

Well, did you get tired of convincing your computer of that? You must have lost it's respect too.

Which part of ternary computers didn't you understand? Computers are binary when we build them binary. Computers are ternary when we build them ternary. And so on.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:13 pm 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.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:01 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:13 pm 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.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 3:44 pm

Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 3:26 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 3:04 am
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. 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.
You, sir are illiterate. 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.

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

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 4:23 pm Can you explain how 2 and 4 contradict? What's stopping him from coming back? His extreme risk-aversion is stopping him, he knows that about himself.

(You'll find Veritas on this forum, but it won't be what you expected.)

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 4:47 pm 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.

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.

Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:52 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 4:47 pm 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.

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.

You are a shining example of why many scientists despise philosophers) You have no idea about real science. In modern science there are no binary recursion (this is a specific programming term, if you only managed to master it, then you are like that hammer for whom everything seems like a nail), there are many who besides Aristotle and others who lived 2400 years ago, and science during this time has advanced far from algebra, geometry and other school mathematics of high school.

Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:03 pm Phil8659 , you look like a bot

Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:03 pm Phil8659 , you look like a bot

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:05 pm Try this out.

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

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