Philosophy Now Forum

Knowledge work rests on underlying beliefs that are consistent and deductively-closed. You cannot do math, science, or engineering if you refuse to subscribe to these two requirements.

Since Christianity and logic are like water and fire, the first step that every knowledge worker must make, is to reject, repudiate, reprobate, and utterly condemn Christian doctrine.

Christianity has always been and will always be for illiterate peasants only ... if even.

By the way, in and of itself, religion is actually fine as long as it does not have a centralized Church frantically damaging its consistency and its deductive closure.

Yeah, Islam too. Hell, Islam even more so.

George Michaels does not have a monopoly on faith...

-Imp

The Christianity Moral Model is the Most Effective at Present [not future]
viewtopic.php?t=40374

Christianity is Idiot-Proof, Islam [inherently evil] is Not
viewtopic.php?t=43455

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 2:09 am Yeah, Islam too. Hell, Islam even more so.

No, because Islam does not have a centralized church that damages its consistency or deductive closure.

Hence, just like every other decentralized religion, Islam can be defined as exactly the consistent and deductive closure around its scriptures.

There is no church that can stop you from doing exactly that.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 4:14 am Christianity is Idiot-Proof

Christianity is indeed for idiots, but not idiot-proof.

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 4:48 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 2:09 am Yeah, Islam too. Hell, Islam even more so.

No, because Islam does not have a centralized church that damages its consistency or deductive closure.

Hence, just like every other decentralized religion, Islam can be defined as exactly the consistent and deductive closure around its scriptures.

Hm, when are Muslims going to get the memo? Lmao.

I don't believe you anyway

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:35 am Hm, when are Muslims going to get the memo? Lmao.

They don't need to get a memo. As long as no centralized organization is able to dictate how they should see religion, it will automatically be understood as the consistent and deductive closure around its scriptures.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:35 am I don't believe you anyway

There are two kinds of people.

People who believe a claim:
(1) Because they can verify its justification
(2) Because of who says it

The vast majority of people are type (2).

They believed Dr. Fauci and his Covid bullshit, not because it was backed by experimental testing, but because Dr. Fauci said "I am science".
They believe what Donald Trump says because they somehow like him and not because it makes sense what he says.

Knowledge workers painstakingly learn to become of type (1). Not all of them succeed in doing that, but that is the goal of their training.

You are clearly of type (2). It matters to you who says it. That means that you are unable and probably also unwilling to verify justification. So, the training failed, even if you had one to begin with. You will end up getting bamboozled some day, because you will become victim to a smooth talker. You are the typical scam victim.

Are you trying to show through epistemology the ‘no-stipulations’ argument? About who really cares what, and knows anything?

godelian wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 7:15 am

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:35 am Hm, when are Muslims going to get the memo? Lmao.

They don't need to get a memo. As long as no centralized organization is able to dictate how they should see religion, it will automatically be understood as the consistent and deductive closure around its scriptures.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:35 am I don't believe you anyway

There are two kinds of people.

People who believe a claim:
(1) Because they can verify its justification
(2) Because of who says it

The vast majority of people are type (2).

They believed Dr. Fauci and his Covid bullshit, not because it was backed by experimental testing, but because Dr. Fauci said "I am science".
They believe what Donald Trump says because they somehow like him and not because it makes sense what he says.

Knowledge workers painstakingly learn to become of type (1). Not all of them succeed in doing that, but that is the goal of their training.

You are clearly of type (2). It matters to you who says it. That means that you are unable and probably also unwilling to verify justification. So, the training failed, even if you had one to begin with. You will end up getting bamboozled some day, because you will become victim to a smooth talker. You are the typical scam victim.

That's all just silly yapping.

If it's a deductive closure and Muslims will understand it that way, then there's no reason for there to be different interpretations of islam. Since there are different interpretations of islam, my question stands, when are Muslims going to get the memo?

I say I don't believe you not because of who you are, but because the claim itself just doesn't stand to scrutiny. You don't need to tell me why I think things you silly dork, just ask.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 9:19 am If it's a deductive closure and Muslims will understand it that way, then there's no reason for there to be different interpretations of islam. Since there are different interpretations of islam, my question stands, when are Muslims going to get the memo?

That amounts to complaining about why at the end of a cryptocurrency blockchain there are multiple forks. A decentralized and distributed system is not immediately consistent. It is at best eventually consistent:

ChatGPT: How long would it take for a decentralized distributed system to converge into eventual consistency if the nodes were humans instead of computers?

If humans were nodes in a decentralized system, convergence could take:
Hours (small, highly connected group)
Days to weeks (medium-sized, semi-organized group)
Months or never (large-scale, loose networks)

Sounds like a cop out to me. It's a so called deductive closure, yet it has many different interpretations. It doesn't LOOK like a deductive closure. It looks like any other piece of artistic, poetic literature which gives many avenues of interpretation.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 11:18 am Sounds like a cop out to me. It's a so called deductive closure, yet it has many different interpretations. It doesn't LOOK like a deductive closure. It looks like any other piece of artistic, poetic literature which gives many avenues of interpretation.

Decentralized systems will converge on eventual consistency. However, it takes time to achieve consensus. This is not only the case in a decentralized network of computers but also in a community of humans.

A good example is a blockchain. A blockchain will eventually reach consistency but before it does so, there will typically exist competing forks. A payment transaction may be included in one fork but not in other ones. The payee therefore waits for the longest fork to start dominating the end of the blockchain. That is why a transaction requires 3 or 6 confirmations, i.e. later blocks, before the payee will consider the payment to be final.

A decentralized payment system does not work like a centralized one. Payers and payees typically have to wait for eventual consistency:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eventual_consistency

Eventual consistency, also called optimistic replication,[2] is widely deployed in distributed systems and has origins in early mobile computing projects. A system that has achieved eventual consistency is often said to have converged, or achieved replica convergence.

Eventually-consistent services are often classified as providing BASE semantics (basically-available, soft-state, eventual consistency), in contrast to traditional ACID (atomicity, consistency, isolation, durability).

A centralized database ("traditional") has a central authority that guarantees ACID. A decentralized database does not have such central authority and strives to achieve BASE by using a consensus protocol:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

The consensus problem requires agreement among a number of processes (or agents) on a single data value. Some of the processes (agents) may fail or be unreliable in other ways, so consensus protocols must be fault-tolerant or resilient. The processes must put forth their candidate values, communicate with one another, and agree on a single consensus value.

The consensus problem is a fundamental problem in controlling multi-agent systems. One approach to generating consensus is for all processes (agents) to agree on a majority value.

Protocols that solve consensus problems are designed to deal with a limited number of faulty processes.

Formal requirements for a consensus protocol may include:
Agreement: All correct processes must agree on the same value.
Weak validity: For each correct process, its output must be the input of some correct process.
Strong validity: If all correct processes receive the same input value, then they must all output that value.
Termination: All processes must eventually decide on an output value

In a decentralized religion you can see a similar phenomenon. Scholars do not immediately agree on the validity of a deductive ruling, because consensus takes time to materialize. A decentralized system cannot reach consistency immediately. It revolves around eventual consistency. Most rulings will reach consensus relatively fast. However, some rulings may take years or even centuries to achieve consensus.

Islam has had over a thousand years to reach a consensus. I don't think it's happening

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Sat Apr 19, 2025 1:00 pm Islam has had over a thousand years to reach a consensus. I don't think it's happening

Every new ruling needs to acquire consensus. There are new rulings every day of the week. Example, "Are memecoins halal? Yes or no?"