Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:38 pm How can a nihilist also be a non nihilist ?
Is there a machine that can answer this ?

class Human():

  def __init__(self, name):
    self.name = name

  def __eq__(self, other):
    # Force violation of Identity
    if id(self) == id(other):
      return False
    elif self.__class__ == Human:
      return True


Nihilist = Human('surreptitious57')

print('We have a nihilist over here. His name is...')
print(Nihilist.name)
print('Is a Nihilist a Nihilist?')
print(Nihilist == Nihilist)
print('Is a Nihilist Human?')
print(Nihilist == Human)

We have a nihilist over here. His name is...
surreptitious57
Is a Nihilist a Nihilist?
False
Is a Nihilist Human?
True

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 11:36 am Even the Universe will eventually die so too will everything else

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:54 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 1:38 pm How can a nihilist also be a non nihilist ?
Is there a machine that can answer this ?

Oh yes it can! Watch this!

https://repl.it/repls/OrangeCompatibleTransformations

Code: Select all

class Human():

  def __init__(self, name):
    self.name = name

  def __eq__(self, other):
    # Force violation of Identity
    if id(self) == id(other):
      return False
    elif self.__class__ == Human:
      return True


Nihilist = Human('surreptitious57')

print('We have a nihilist over here. His name is...')
print(Nihilist.name)
print('Is a Nihilist a Nihilist?')
print(Nihilist == Nihilist)
print('Is a Nihilist Human?')
print(Nihilist == Human)

Why do you think I am on this crussade to toss out the 'LAW" of identity

A THING NEEDS NOT BE THE SAME AS ITSELF.

Other people's language does NOT define you.
Your METALANGUAGE defines you!

Your thoughts define you.

Code: Select all

We have a nihilist over here. His name is...
surreptitious57
Is a Nihilist a Nihilist?
False
Is a Nihilist Human?
True

Nietzsche recognized that the pursuit of the Übermensch was to reject the language of others, and define themselves in their own language!

But you have no language of your own. You are trapped in English!

Free yourself from the tyranny of others! Invent your OWN meta-language. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metalanguage

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:08 pm The absolute STUPIDITY of writing a code so that the output of a computer will then confirm what one BELIEVES and is saying speaks for itself. In fact the very examples are given here, in this forum, for ALL to SEE.

What is the point of continually opposing what another says, and then more or less saying: See a computer agrees with what I say, so I must be right?

We KNOW already that it is possible, and we know how it is very easy, to create a code so that a computer will show what we want it to show. As I explained it could be argued at being about one of the most simplest and basic things in life to do. But just because one might say that it is a computer logic outcome does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT mean that that answer is a logical sound and valid one. As you have continually PROVEN computers can and DO give completely WRONG answers.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:08 pm The absolute STUPIDITY of writing a code so that the output of a computer will then confirm what one BELIEVES and is saying speaks for itself. In fact the very examples are given here, in this forum, for ALL to SEE.

What is the point of continually opposing what another says, and then more or less saying: See a computer agrees with what I say, so I must be right?

We KNOW already that it is possible, and we know how it is very easy, to create a code so that a computer will show what we want it to show. As I explained it could be argued at being about one of the most simplest and basic things in life to do. But just because one might say that it is a computer logic outcome does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT mean that that answer is a logical sound and valid one. As you have continually PROVEN computers can and DO give completely WRONG answers.

Silly Kid.

The law of identity says A = A is ALWAYS true.
I just showed you that A != A can ALSO be true WITHOUT resulting in a contradiction.

So. Will you now answer us?

Are you human?

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:22 pm You really must be that BLIND.

You asked me that before. I answered NO. How many times do I have to tell you.

You say, Only once. BUT you then go on to ask me two more times straight after I have already given you the answer.

Explain to us how you did NOT see my answer when I wrote it in capital letters? You even said it is a yes or no answer. So, I answer it, in capital letters, yet you somehow did NOT see it.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:22 pm You really must be that BLIND.

You asked me that before. I answered NO. How many times do I have to tell you.

You say, Only once. BUT you then go on to ask me two more times straight after I have already given you the answer.

Explain to us how you did NOT see my answer when I wrote it in capital letters? You even said it is a yes or no answer. So, I answer it, in capital letters, yet you somehow did NOT see it.

I was blind but now I see. Clearly I made a mistake. I thought I was speaking to a human.

I am on this forum to speak to other humans. So you will have to excuse me if I no longer respond to your posts.
Have a good day/life.

I hope you find your people.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:18 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:08 pm The absolute STUPIDITY of writing a code so that the output of a computer will then confirm what one BELIEVES and is saying speaks for itself. In fact the very examples are given here, in this forum, for ALL to SEE.

What is the point of continually opposing what another says, and then more or less saying: See a computer agrees with what I say, so I must be right?

We KNOW already that it is possible, and we know how it is very easy, to create a code so that a computer will show what we want it to show. As I explained it could be argued at being about one of the most simplest and basic things in life to do. But just because one might say that it is a computer logic outcome does NOT, and I will repeat, does NOT mean that that answer is a logical sound and valid one. As you have continually PROVEN computers can and DO give completely WRONG answers.

Silly Kid.

The law of identity says A = A is ALWAYS true.
I just showed you that A != A can ALSO be true WITHOUT resulting in a contradiction.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:28 pm If I recall correctly this is about the third time that you have implied that you will not respond to me anymore.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:31 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:28 pm If I recall correctly this is about the third time that you have implied that you will not respond to me anymore.

I was mistaken.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:35 pm Once again, just hearsay with NO evidence.

Also, so you must like responding to non humans. You can not seem to stop doing it.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:43 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Feb 27, 2019 2:35 pm Once again, just hearsay with NO evidence.

Also, so you must like responding to non humans. You can not seem to stop doing it.

I think you are mistaken about your non-humanity.

You said that you hold no beliefs. But you do. You believe that you are not human.
I believe that you are.

Age wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Even the Universe will eventually die so too will everything else

Is that an absolute fact that you know for sure ?

Als in another thread you explained that what caused you to come into existence is timeless which infers an infinite aliveness
which in some ways contradicts what you just wrote here about EVERY thing WILL die . Can you clear this up for me please ?

anne wrote: ↑Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:48 am Maths end in contradiction an integer = a non-integer

http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp ... ssible.pdf

1 is a finite number it stops
A finite decimal is one that stops, like 0.157
A non-finite decimal like 0.999... does not stop
when a finite number 1 = a non-finite number 0.999.. then maths ends in contradiction

another way
1 is an integer a whole number
0.888... is a non-integer it is not a whole number
0.999... is a non-integer not a whole number
when a integer 1 =a non-integer 0.999... maths ends in contradiction