Philosophy Now Forum

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:09 pm

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

You seek to transcend truth, when you are not even capable of comprehending or being true to begin with, That is called escapism. If you cannot deal with objective reality, you are simply lost in your own delusions and will spout any bull shit to defend it.

Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:20 pm

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:09 pm

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

You seek to transcend truth, when you are not even capable of comprehending or being true to begin with, That is called escapism. If you cannot deal with objective reality, you are simply lost in your own delusions and will spout any bull shit to defend it.

Reality is richer than any artificial semantics, why do you want to be so limited in your little world?
And yes, in science we end with definitions, not start with them.

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.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:15 am

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.

Does this claim exist when you "yourself" deflect from answering simple questions "atla"?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:15 am

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

Deflecting from answering simple questions is the resort of the idiot.

Does this claim exist when you "yourself" deflect from answering simple questions "atla"?

I would think that a professional at being able not to answer a question, like yourself, should know the answer to that.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:55 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Mar 30, 2025 2:15 am

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

Deflecting from answering simple questions is the resort of the idiot.

Does this claim exist when you "yourself" deflect from answering simple questions "atla"?

I would think that a professional at being able not to answer a question, like yourself, should know the answer to that.

Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 8:03 pm Hi all! I would like to offer you my paradox, close in spirit to the Sleeping Beauty paradox.
Bob is given a condition - he will be placed in a room that can be green or orange.
Then he will be taken out of the room, where he can return. If he returns to the green room, he will receive a million dollars, if to the orange one, then ten million dollars will be taken from him. But there is a nuance, if Bob leaves the orange room, then his memory, behavior and confidence are changed as if he left the green room. The experiment is conducted once in Bob's life.
Initial condition - Bob found himself in a green room. How should he act? Bob's thoughts
Thought 1 - I am in the green room, so I just need to leave and return
Thought 2 - if I leave, then at the same time I cannot be sure that I did not leave the orange room, so I cannot return. (let's assume that our Bob is extremely risk-averse)
Thought 3 - I can now pump myself up with drugs that will pull me back in regardless of my will when I leave, and that will be a win, and I'm lucky that I am in the green room and not the orange one, then I would definitely be finished
Thought 4 - what's stopping me from coming back without drugs?
Thought 4 contradicts thought 2, although they are both true.
Paradox

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

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 3:04 am

Seeker of Veritas wrote: ↑Fri Mar 28, 2025 8:03 pm Hi all! I would like to offer you my paradox, close in spirit to the Sleeping Beauty paradox.
Bob is given a condition - he will be placed in a room that can be green or orange.
Then he will be taken out of the room, where he can return. If he returns to the green room, he will receive a million dollars, if to the orange one, then ten million dollars will be taken from him. But there is a nuance, if Bob leaves the orange room, then his memory, behavior and confidence are changed as if he left the green room. The experiment is conducted once in Bob's life.
Initial condition - Bob found himself in a green room. How should he act? Bob's thoughts
Thought 1 - I am in the green room, so I just need to leave and return
Thought 2 - if I leave, then at the same time I cannot be sure that I did not leave the orange room, so I cannot return. (let's assume that our Bob is extremely risk-averse)
Thought 3 - I can now pump myself up with drugs that will pull me back in regardless of my will when I leave, and that will be a win, and I'm lucky that I am in the green room and not the orange one, then I would definitely be finished
Thought 4 - what's stopping me from coming back without drugs?
Thought 4 contradicts thought 2, although they are both true.
Paradox

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?

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.

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

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 3:44 pm You, sir are illiterate.

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

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 3:44 pm I formalize Geometry as a grammar, you are welcome to use my work. You can draw any computer with it.

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.

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

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?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:05 pm When you Write, "this sentence" does the sentence actually exist? It is called a tense error, not a paradox. When you read a sentence, you read it as written, even temporally. There was no one to one correspondence to begin with.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:05 pm So, when you write anything, you can say, have I been consistent in establishing a factual one-to-one correspondence between noun and verb? Because if you are sure you did, you can then write it in arithmetic, algebra and geometry.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:05 pm This sentence is false, is written A = -A, which is gibberish.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:45 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 5:21 pm Nothing worse than sentences without any verbs or with hidden verbs. Sheer horror, a mockery of binary recursion.

Then again, what about ternary recursion.. verbs, nouns and adjectives.. the method of a brighter future?

Tell me, As noun is to limit, a verb to the relative difference within the limits, i.e., relative and its correlatives.
What third man, as Aristotle pointed out cannot possibly exist, are you speaking about?
Grammar is based on a one-to-one correspondence, recursion is achieved by the ability to intelligibly parse information. Noun, container equals (noun and verb). Tom is a cat, or the definitive sentence. there is no end, or nothing which is grouped otherwise. So, Educate Plato and Aristotle for us and explain this third man idea of yours.

An operand or operation is not a new part of speech.
Tom is a cat.
Tom is red.
therefore,
Tom is a red cat.
or again,
Red Tom is a cat.

In binary, you have four ways to establish a one to one correspondence, add assertion and denial, etc.,
You seem to drift off into mysticism rather easily.

As binary produces Common Grammar, Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry, What system of grammar are you trying to use?
The Third man Grammar is as real as the Third Man.

You used the word adjective, are you implying that Common Grammar differs from itself? That binary is not binary?

Think about this, in Arithmetic, or Algebra or Geometry, does a word change its part of speech relative to its geographical location in a sentence, or in fact, are there no factually correct grammar books today>
Is it possible, that words violate a one to one correspondence based on geographical location as taught today?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:13 pm A person who cannot distinguish the difference between a noun and a verb, their intelligible foundation, but only is capable of parroting whatever nonsense they like, is not even worth talking to.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 7:13 pm And, for those who cannot do math. How do you get to 3, say a tertiary computer. Not by binary progression, as in simple arithmetic, or by magic?

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.

Information processing is an intelligible, it does not allow any particular so called authority of claiming otherwise. Stop, go, stop, May as well argue with a light switch. When the fucking thing stops working, you shit can it.

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 9:28 pm

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.

Oh! look, a boundary has suddenly appeared in Harry Potter's Universe. We can now multiply, without limits!,
Wow, is that like memory foam?

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:09 pm

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

You seek to transcend truth,

Phil8659 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 29, 2025 10:09 pm when you are not even capable of comprehending or being true to begin with, That is called escapism. If you cannot deal with objective reality, you are simply lost in your own delusions and will spout any bull shit to defend it.