For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
So "reality" does have symmetry (through the computer)?Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:03 pmhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
The models I work with have a 4 to 6 Sigma precision.
The problem arises where the two parties have different interests and asymmetric information (the agent having more information), such that the principal cannot directly ensure that the agent is always acting in their (the principal's) best interest
Don't get off the question:Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:15 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_t ... incentives
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal ... nt_problemThe problem arises where the two parties have different interests and asymmetric information (the agent having more information), such that the principal cannot directly ensure that the agent is always acting in their (the principal's) best interest
You are going to have to define your conception of "real". As a model-dependent realist that's not exactly a word I care to use that word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrongModel-dependent realism is a view of scientific inquiry that focuses on the role of scientific models of phenomena.[1] It claims reality should be interpreted based upon these models, and where several models overlap in describing a particular subject, multiple, equally valid, realities exist. It claims that it is meaningless to talk about the "true reality" of a model as we can never be absolutely certain of anything. The only meaningful thing is the usefulness of the model
"All models are wrong" is a common aphorism in statistics; it is often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful". It is usually considered to be applicable to not only statistical models, but to scientific models generally.
You are also going to have to define your conception of "symmetry".
Actually I don't, you claim all is asymmetry hence to negate a definition it must first exist as defined. You can keep redefining "symmetry" in a continual recursive form of axioms, but this in itself results in a linear definition composed of further linear definitions hence a replication of the same phenomenon.
OK. Then you don't know what symmetry means? CoolEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:24 pm Actually I don't, you claim all is asymmetry hence to negate a definition it must first exist as defined. You can keep redefining "symmetry" in a continual recursive form of axioms, but this in itself results in a linear definition composed of further linear definitions hence a replication of the same phenomenon.
I am simply asking if computer are symmetric or not.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:33 pmOK. Then you don't know what symmetry means? CoolEodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:24 pm Actually I don't, you claim all is asymmetry hence to negate a definition it must first exist as defined. You can keep redefining "symmetry" in a continual recursive form of axioms, but this in itself results in a linear definition composed of further linear definitions hence a replication of the same phenomenon.
So what windmill are you fighting this time?
I don't have to determine anything. I can just observe an abstract or empirical point directed itself to another an observe symmetric through the recurssion of point space.
If that is YOUR conclusion, then so be it.Logik wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 4:11 pmSo? I am immature. And you are an asshole.Age wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:25 pm For a person who professes to putting me on the ignore list, at least three times already, you really do appear to enjoy wanting to keep returning and talking to, or about, me. It is a shame, though, you only feel like responding to me some times and NOT when I pose questions to you nor when HIGHLIGHT and SHOW the errors in your so called "logic" and "reasoning".
By the way if there was any thought at all that saying "i am a hole on an animal's body" was going to affect me in any detrimental way whatsoever, then so be it. The maturity, or lack there of, in saying the above speaks entirely for itself.
On WHAT exactly?
If what I write is to hard, to complex, and to illogical for you to comprehend and understand, for you to be able to point out the flaws in it, even just one, and then challenge and question any of those flaws, then so be it.
You may be intoxicated with your own spin, but other people may not find as much value in it. There are surely countless worthwhile perspectives and approaches to choose from, and they don't all have to be convoluted and spun-up in themselves -- although it's a common human/ego tendency to do so. The more noise, the more spin... is a common pattern I've noticed.