For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Then by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:25 pm
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.
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.
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.
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).Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 pmThen by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:25 pm
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.
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.
Maybe you should have this discussion with Scott Aronson.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:35 pmFalse, 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).Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 pmThen by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:25 pm
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.
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.
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.
QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.
You don't see the value of being able to think for yourself?Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:21 pmWell, 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.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
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.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:38 pmMaybe you should have this discussion with Scott Aronson.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:35 pmFalse, 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).Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 pm
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.
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.
I am not wasting any more time on you. I have dinner to cook and wine to drink
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.
Why do you expect short inferential distances to new knowledge?
Strawman. Nobody is talking about programmingEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:35 pmFalse, 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).Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:44 pmThen by your axiom the above is false. All points of origin must be described by further points of origin.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2019 9:25 pm
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.
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.
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.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:01 pmActually 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.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:38 pmMaybe you should have this discussion with Scott Aronson.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:35 pm
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.
I am not wasting any more time on you. I have dinner to cook and wine to drink
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=710QED: the moral order of the universe is restored, and the Turing machine’s exalted position at the base of all human thought reaffirmed.
More waffle.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:09 pmWhy do you expect short inferential distances to new knowledge?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances
Speakpigeon wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:25 pmMore waffle.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:09 pmWhy do you expect short inferential distances to new knowledge?
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances
You can't stop your brain waffling.
EB
You have really no idea what you're talking about.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2019 9:45 pm