The Law of Identity

[Logik]

Tell me what a "distinction" is first?

1 bit of information

[Eodnhoj7]

Tell me what a "distinction" is first?

1 bit of information

False, because that "1 bit" must be describe by further axioms. "1 bit" is "assumed" as true; hence is grounded by an absence of "thinking" about the percieve phenomenon. This "empty mind", where the axiom is not "thought out" but just "assumed" grounds it in a boundless space equivalent to point space.

Prime Triad:

"All axioms are points of origin".

Try again.

[Logik]

False, because that "1 bit" must be describe by further axioms. "1 bit" is "assumed" as true; hence is grounded by an absence of "thinking" about the percieve phenomenon. This "empty mind", where the axiom is not "thought out" but just "assumed" grounds it in a boundless space equivalent to point space.

Prime Triad:

"All axioms are points of origin".

Try again.

Then by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.
Which are described by further points of origin.

Right till I ask you: How many axioms are there? How many points of origin are there?

Infinitism is stupid.

[Speakpigeon]

The difference is your brain is a black box to you.

Well, that how it's supposed to work. But we can pay attention to our logical intuition and I do. That's what it means to be a human being.
Maybe you're not like this but as I said maybe you're insane.

It's a shame you aren't using it to its full potential.

I haven't seen the benefit of doing any different. Looking at how you're unable to articulate any idea, if you have one, I'd say I prefer the way I work.
You're inconsistent and you constantly misinterpret what I say, to the point where it becomes a thankless job to correct you. Your conversations here achieve nothing. You don't benefit from what people say because you don't take the time to try and understand, and there's nothing you say that's possibly interesting because you're inconsistent and inarticulate. For example, you talk of logic in different ways depending on the moment. And you never get to articulate any substantive idea. The result is just pathetic waffle on and on and on and on. There's no conversation possible because your attention span doesn't last more than one post. Normal people can build an understanding after only a few posts. Not you. You're all over the place and nowhere. You make extraordinary claims supported only by waffle. Doesn't work. And clearly, you're not going to learn anything. C'est come pisser dans un violon. Just a waste of time. You're a junkie for attention but your brain is fried. You're convinced you understand something but you're unable to explain what it is. I guess we can always try to pray for you.
EB

[Eodnhoj7]

False, because that "1 bit" must be describe by further axioms. "1 bit" is "assumed" as true; hence is grounded by an absence of "thinking" about the percieve phenomenon. This "empty mind", where the axiom is not "thought out" but just "assumed" grounds it in a boundless space equivalent to point space.

Prime Triad:

"All axioms are points of origin".

Try again.

Then by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.
Which are described by further points of origin.

Right till I ask you: How many axioms are there? How many points of origin are there?

Infinitism is stupid.

False, all axioms as nothing in themselves observe (Prime Triad Law 1) observes all axioms as progressive (Law 2) and "everything through the other (second half law 1).

This axiom as nothing in itself, existing through constant change is observed as directed, by its own nature to the second half of Prime Triad Law 2: all axioms as directed towards eachother are connected. Hence all axioms, as directed towards other axioms are directed through themselves as a cycle observe in law 3 (all axioms are cycles).


Connection observes dynamic change as a constant, hence change is nothing in itself as it is directed towards consistency as the origin of it.

In simpler terms all axioms as nothing in themselves observe all axioms as finite, however as existing through all other axioms effectively infinite. Because the axiom is both finite and infinite, the axiom as finite exists as multiple infinities. Or in simpler terms "change" is constant relative to another change.



But the problem with infinitism, your "problem", stems itself to programming.

How many variables do you plan on applying to programming...an infinite amount?



Is "how many axioms" a legitimate question considering this in itself is an axiom?

For example if I say there is "1" axiom:

This 1 axiom is in itself another axiom, in the fact that because it is a self-maintained cycle (law 3) it effectively exists through progression (law 2) where this 1 axiom is observed by progressing to another axiom which effectively observes it as connected because of this directed of the one through itself.

So Law 1, as nothing in itself, is observed by the progressive nature of law 2, and the nature of law 3 where all axioms fragment (distill into further axioms).

Law 2, as nothing initself, must progress to law 1 (all axioms as nothing); hence showing law 1 as the foundation for progression (all axioms as nothing in themselves effectively must progress). Hence this follows Law 3 where the laws exist through a cycle.

[Logik]

False, because that "1 bit" must be describe by further axioms. "1 bit" is "assumed" as true; hence is grounded by an absence of "thinking" about the percieve phenomenon. This "empty mind", where the axiom is not "thought out" but just "assumed" grounds it in a boundless space equivalent to point space.

Prime Triad:

"All axioms are points of origin".

Try again.

Then by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.
Which are described by further points of origin.

Right till I ask you: How many axioms are there? How many points of origin are there?

Infinitism is stupid.

False, all axioms as nothing in themselves observe (Prime Triad Law 1) observes all axioms as progressive (Law 2) and "everything through the other (second half law 1).

This axiom as nothing in itself, existing through constant change is observed as directed, by its own nature to the second half of Prime Triad Law 2: all axioms as directed towards eachother are connected. Hence all axioms, as directed towards other axioms are directed through themselves as a cycle observe in law 3 (all axioms are cycles).


Connection observes dynamic change as a constant, hence change is nothing in itself as it is directed towards consistency as the origin of it.

In simpler terms all axioms as nothing in themselves observe all axioms as finite, however as existing through all other axioms effectively infinite. Because the axiom is both finite and infinite, the axiom as finite exists as multiple infinities. Or in simpler terms "change" is constant relative to another change.

But the problem with infinitism, your "problem", stems itself to programming.

How many variables do you plan on applying to programming...an infinite amount?



Is "how many axioms" a legitimate question considering this in itself is an axiom?

For example if I say there is "1" axiom:

This 1 axiom is in itself another axiom, in the fact that because it is a self-maintained cycle (law 3) it effectively exists through progression (law 2) where this 1 axiom is observed by progressing to another axiom which effectively observes it as connected because of this directed of the one through itself.

So Law 1, as nothing in itself, is observed by the progressive nature of law 2, and the nature of law 3 where all axioms fragment (distill into further axioms).

Law 2, as nothing initself, must progress to law 1 (all axioms as nothing); hence showing law 1 as the foundation for progression (all axioms as nothing in themselves effectively must progress). Hence this follows Law 3 where the laws exist through a cycle.

Maybe you should have this discussion with Scott Aronson.

I am not wasting any more time on you. I have dinner to cook and wine to drink

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710

QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.

[Logik]

The difference is your brain is a black box to you.

Well, that how it's supposed to work. But we can pay attention to our logical intuition and I do. That's what it means to be a human being.
Maybe you're not like this but as I said maybe you're insane.

It's a shame you aren't using it to its full potential.

I haven't seen the benefit of doing any different. Looking at how you're unable to articulate any idea, if you have one, I'd say I prefer the way I work.
You're inconsistent and you constantly misinterpret what I say, to the point where it becomes a thankless job to correct you. Your conversations here achieve nothing. You don't benefit from what people say because you don't take the time to try and understand, and there's nothing you say that's possibly interesting because you're inconsistent and inarticulate. For example, you talk of logic in different ways depending on the moment. And you never get to articulate any substantive idea. The result is just pathetic waffle on and on and on and on. There's no conversation possible because your attention span doesn't last more than one post. Normal people can build an understanding after only a few posts. Not you. You're all over the place and nowhere. You make extraordinary claims supported only by waffle. Doesn't work. And clearly, you're not going to learn anything. C'est come pisser dans un violon. Just a waste of time. You're a junkie for attention but your brain is fried. You're convinced you understand something but you're unable to explain what it is. I guess we can always try to pray for you.
EB

You don't see the value of being able to think for yourself?
You don't see the value in having a useful model to think about your own mind? OK

But you DO see a value in being able to articulate your ideas?

So only one question remains: What ideas are you going to articulate if you can't think for yourself?
Where are these ideas going to come? Revelation?


I am not here to convince you of anything or to sell you anything.

I am here to state this fact and let you decide for yourself.

The Turing machine is at the base of human thought. --Scott Aronson
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710

Which seems to resemble plenty of your own "Logic is downstairs".

Yeah it is

[Speakpigeon]

More waffle.
EB

[Eodnhoj7]

Then by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.
Which are described by further points of origin.

Right till I ask you: How many axioms are there? How many points of origin are there?

Infinitism is stupid.

False, all axioms as nothing in themselves observe (Prime Triad Law 1) observes all axioms as progressive (Law 2) and "everything through the other (second half law 1).

This axiom as nothing in itself, existing through constant change is observed as directed, by its own nature to the second half of Prime Triad Law 2: all axioms as directed towards eachother are connected. Hence all axioms, as directed towards other axioms are directed through themselves as a cycle observe in law 3 (all axioms are cycles).


Connection observes dynamic change as a constant, hence change is nothing in itself as it is directed towards consistency as the origin of it.

In simpler terms all axioms as nothing in themselves observe all axioms as finite, however as existing through all other axioms effectively infinite. Because the axiom is both finite and infinite, the axiom as finite exists as multiple infinities. Or in simpler terms "change" is constant relative to another change.

But the problem with infinitism, your "problem", stems itself to programming.

How many variables do you plan on applying to programming...an infinite amount?



Is "how many axioms" a legitimate question considering this in itself is an axiom?

For example if I say there is "1" axiom:

This 1 axiom is in itself another axiom, in the fact that because it is a self-maintained cycle (law 3) it effectively exists through progression (law 2) where this 1 axiom is observed by progressing to another axiom which effectively observes it as connected because of this directed of the one through itself.

So Law 1, as nothing in itself, is observed by the progressive nature of law 2, and the nature of law 3 where all axioms fragment (distill into further axioms).

Law 2, as nothing initself, must progress to law 1 (all axioms as nothing); hence showing law 1 as the foundation for progression (all axioms as nothing in themselves effectively must progress). Hence this follows Law 3 where the laws exist through a cycle.

Maybe you should have this discussion with Scott Aronson.

I am not wasting any more time on you. I have dinner to cook and wine to drink

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710

QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.

Actually you are just owned, strictly because you cannot argue against a system that "you cannot create". Go back to eating and drinking...something which existed prior to programming.



The argument above can be put in simpler terms:

All the laws exist through a progressive cycling, observing the cycling as a constant. Where one law effectively is nothing in itself, it progresses towards and cycles to another law, with these laws existing through infinite variation as extension of these three laws.

For example you can observe the "empty mindedness" is grounded in point space argument as an example from the perspective of pyschology.

The axiom, an state of "assumption", observes the consciousness exists through these laws.

I assume something. This assumption is given form by being directed towards another assumption. This assumption is directed back. Both assumptions are connected; hence cycling. This cycle is nothing in itself; hence directs itself to another cycle....etc.



All change is constant relative to other change.

[Logik]

More waffle.
EB

Why do you expect short inferential distances to new knowledge?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

[Logik]

False, because that "1 bit" must be describe by further axioms. "1 bit" is "assumed" as true; hence is grounded by an absence of "thinking" about the percieve phenomenon. This "empty mind", where the axiom is not "thought out" but just "assumed" grounds it in a boundless space equivalent to point space.

Prime Triad:

"All axioms are points of origin".

Try again.

Then by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.
Which are described by further points of origin.

Right till I ask you: How many axioms are there? How many points of origin are there?

Infinitism is stupid.

False, all axioms as nothing in themselves observe (Prime Triad Law 1) observes all axioms as progressive (Law 2) and "everything through the other (second half law 1).

This axiom as nothing in itself, existing through constant change is observed as directed, by its own nature to the second half of Prime Triad Law 2: all axioms as directed towards eachother are connected. Hence all axioms, as directed towards other axioms are directed through themselves as a cycle observe in law 3 (all axioms are cycles).


Connection observes dynamic change as a constant, hence change is nothing in itself as it is directed towards consistency as the origin of it.

In simpler terms all axioms as nothing in themselves observe all axioms as finite, however as existing through all other axioms effectively infinite. Because the axiom is both finite and infinite, the axiom as finite exists as multiple infinities. Or in simpler terms "change" is constant relative to another change.



But the problem with infinitism, your "problem", stems itself to programming.

How many variables do you plan on applying to programming...an infinite amount?



Is "how many axioms" a legitimate question considering this in itself is an axiom?

For example if I say there is "1" axiom:

This 1 axiom is in itself another axiom, in the fact that because it is a self-maintained cycle (law 3) it effectively exists through progression (law 2) where this 1 axiom is observed by progressing to another axiom which effectively observes it as connected because of this directed of the one through itself.

So Law 1, as nothing in itself, is observed by the progressive nature of law 2, and the nature of law 3 where all axioms fragment (distill into further axioms).

Law 2, as nothing initself, must progress to law 1 (all axioms as nothing); hence showing law 1 as the foundation for progression (all axioms as nothing in themselves effectively must progress). Hence this follows Law 3 where the laws exist through a cycle.

Strawman. Nobody is talking about programming

We are talking about the foundation of thought. Turing machines.

[Logik]

False, all axioms as nothing in themselves observe (Prime Triad Law 1) observes all axioms as progressive (Law 2) and "everything through the other (second half law 1).

This axiom as nothing in itself, existing through constant change is observed as directed, by its own nature to the second half of Prime Triad Law 2: all axioms as directed towards eachother are connected. Hence all axioms, as directed towards other axioms are directed through themselves as a cycle observe in law 3 (all axioms are cycles).


Connection observes dynamic change as a constant, hence change is nothing in itself as it is directed towards consistency as the origin of it.

In simpler terms all axioms as nothing in themselves observe all axioms as finite, however as existing through all other axioms effectively infinite. Because the axiom is both finite and infinite, the axiom as finite exists as multiple infinities. Or in simpler terms "change" is constant relative to another change.



But the problem with infinitism, your "problem", stems itself to programming.

How many variables do you plan on applying to programming...an infinite amount?



Is "how many axioms" a legitimate question considering this in itself is an axiom?

For example if I say there is "1" axiom:

This 1 axiom is in itself another axiom, in the fact that because it is a self-maintained cycle (law 3) it effectively exists through progression (law 2) where this 1 axiom is observed by progressing to another axiom which effectively observes it as connected because of this directed of the one through itself.

So Law 1, as nothing in itself, is observed by the progressive nature of law 2, and the nature of law 3 where all axioms fragment (distill into further axioms).

Law 2, as nothing initself, must progress to law 1 (all axioms as nothing); hence showing law 1 as the foundation for progression (all axioms as nothing in themselves effectively must progress). Hence this follows Law 3 where the laws exist through a cycle.

Maybe you should have this discussion with Scott Aronson.

I am not wasting any more time on you. I have dinner to cook and wine to drink

https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710

QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.

Actually you are just owned, strictly because you cannot argue against a system that "you cannot create". Go back to eating and drinking...something which existed prior to programming.

Strawman. Nobody is talking about programming.

Lambda calculus/Turing machines are the foundation of thought.

Did eating and drinking exist before thought?

You are simply mixing up thought (computation) with the expression of thought (programming).

[Speakpigeon]

More waffle.
EB

Why do you expect short inferential distances to new knowledge?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

More waffle.
You can't stop your brain waffling.
EB

[Logik]

More waffle.
EB

Why do you expect short inferential distances to new knowledge?

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

More waffle.
You can't stop your brain waffling.
EB

Sure. If you are too stupid to understand it, I guess it must be my fault.

I am sorry that I don't know how to dumb down my knowledge so that you can understand it.

There's only so much you can abuse Cunningham's law. I've given you pointers and sufficient reading.
If you want me to do more for you - pay for my time.

[Speakpigeon]

Sure. If you are too stupid to understand it, I guess it must be my fault. I am sorry that I don't know how to dumb down my knowledge so that you can understand it.There's only so much you can abuse Cunningham's law. I've given you pointers and sufficient reading. If you want me to do more for you - pay for my time.

You have really no idea what you're talking about.
Waffle ++
Why waste your time waffling++?!
Yeah, you need attention.
You're an attention-seeker freak.
EB