relativity of mind (and one application)

[zorion]

Hi,
I've an idea which I can use for many purposes. Of course first I used it then I understood what I did, but I will try explain the other way round here.

If you have any kind of philosophical continuum. Where you have two poles and a infinite straight line between those to poles in the infinite. Like you have with anarchy and dictatorship, chaos and order, freedom and being bound or others like light and darkness (OK maybe that's more of a ray as you can hold fix the one pole pretty easy).
Many more.

In you head it is very easy to just take that straight line and make it a line segment. Of course in math you cannot do so, but some say logic is a step higher than math and there you can do so.

So our axis from minus infinite to plus infinite became a line segment from zero to one or from minus one to one for instance. Now when you put like a function over it, it is in a way much easier to think about it. Let's think of an Gaussian bell curve over a spirit matter continuum. Maybe a philosophical Gaussian bell curve would look a bit different then a mathematical one, anyway you could think of what that kind of thing would look like on you new shaped no more infinite axis right?

What I want to say with this is, that with many of these 'two extreme poles' situations, you need to balance these poles.
And the balance, that in many cases everyone have to find for himself in many cases lies somewhere in the middle between the poles. Cases could maybe be spread over the axis like the Gaussian bell curve would say. So if the Gaussian bell curve is true in a special two extreme poles situation as an ideal the absolute poles are not good ever. All the rest can be but the further to the extremes you go the less likely it is to be a good choice.

Now i Come to an example finally. I Wonder if anyone could follow this highly theoretical stuff from a not native English speaker anyway.

Let's take Freedom and being bound. In the western, especially US American attitude Freedom is a very high quality.
Freedom to do what you want, say what you want, make with your money what you want without anyone interfering.
Being bound is the evil opposite as it seems. But think of it, you could use different names for it (as maybe Wittgenstein would have suggested) like maybe duty or responsibility. On the one hand side for those who you might have a duty or responsibility for, or for those have those towards you. On the other hand side, isn't it great to be allowed to have a duty for someone. Doesn't there always come huge benefits from tasks with high responsibility. And I'm not only talking job, I'm talking having a girlfriend, or being married too.

There where times where they valued duty much higher than freedom. In Germany especially Preußen long before the second world war for instance. Yes maybe that helped to allow the crimes of the second world war. But to revert to the other extreme doesn't really help it I'm sure of.

Like the old Chines symbol of Yin and Yang implies you always have to find your balance. And I am very sad about the unbalanced situation that we have at that matter of Philosophical view that i just described. Freedom and being bound.

Besides adapting this poles to chaos and order, freedom - chaos and duty - order. Where you could go with anarchy - chaos - absolute freedom or dictatorship - order - duty. I'm trying to show the extremes are not good in any of these cases. And in Fact I believe the absolute extreme become equal again. Anarchy become dictatorship because the strongest can then dictate what's being done. On the other hand dictatorship is anarchy because those on top can do what ever they like because no one can stop them from.

You can as well adapt them to the economic system. Where capitalism would be freedom (+ anarchy) while communism would be duty (+ dictatorship).

I could go on describing what I think which kind of middle there should be found between those two. And I gladly will if anyone read so far, and is so roughly agreeing.

Hope anyone understood.

[The Voice of Time]

what exactly do you propose here?

it is a text, about balance using a visual aid (your Gaussian Bell Curve), and I understand it (or, I haven't "studied" bell curves but I reckon what they are visually after a quick googling), but what is your point about them?

the title neither seems to be coherent with the topic of your text, what about the text are you referring to as "relativity of mind"?

[chaz wyman]

Hi,
I've an idea which I can use for many purposes. Of course first I used it then I understood what I did, but I will try explain the other way round here.

If you have any kind of philosophical continuum.

This is not a sentence.

Where you have two poles and a infinite straight line between those to poles in the infinite.

An infinite straight line, is not bounded by two poles. An infinite line is unbounded - the clue is in the name infinite.

Like you have with anarchy and dictatorship, chaos and order, freedom and being bound or others like light and darkness (OK maybe that's more of a ray as you can hold fix the one pole pretty easy).
Many more.

These are called opposites; dichotomies, or differences depending in the context.


In you head it is very easy to just take that straight line and make it a line segment. Of course in math you cannot do so, but some say logic is a step higher than math and there you can do so.

What does this mean; a line segment?


So our axis from minus infinite to plus infinite became a line segment from zero to one or from minus one to one for instance.

Does it? For an infinite line to have a negative and a positive, you have to have a meaningful point, This is impossible, because when you divide an infinite line you get two infinite lines.

Now when you put like a function over it, it is in a way much easier to think about it. Let's think of an Gaussian bell curve over a spirit matter continuum. Maybe a philosophical Gaussian bell curve would look a bit different then a mathematical one, anyway you could think of what that kind of thing would look like on you new shaped no more infinite axis right?

I'll pretend this is making sense. I can't wait to get to the meat of the text!!

What I want to say with this is, that with many of these 'two extreme poles' situations, you need to balance these poles.
And the balance, that in many cases everyone have to find for himself in many cases lies somewhere in the middle between the poles. Cases could maybe be spread over the axis like the Gaussian bell curve would say. So if the Gaussian bell curve is true in a special two extreme poles situation as an ideal the absolute poles are not good ever. All the rest can be but the further to the extremes you go the less likely it is to be a good choice.

(tapping fingers....)

Now i Come to an example finally. I Wonder if anyone could follow this highly theoretical stuff from a not native English speaker anyway.

An example? It's the point I was looking for!

Let's take Freedom and being bound. In the western, especially US American attitude Freedom is a very high quality.
Freedom to do what you want, say what you want, make with your money what you want without anyone interfering.
Being bound is the evil opposite as it seems. But think of it, you could use different names for it (as maybe Wittgenstein would have suggested) like maybe duty or responsibility. On the one hand side for those who you might have a duty or responsibility for, or for those have those towards you. On the other hand side, isn't it great to be allowed to have a duty for someone. Doesn't there always come huge benefits from tasks with high responsibility. And I'm not only talking job, I'm talking having a girlfriend, or being married too.

There where times where they valued duty much higher than freedom. In Germany especially Preußen long before the second world war for instance. Yes maybe that helped to allow the crimes of the second world war. But to revert to the other extreme doesn't really help it I'm sure of.

Like the old Chines symbol of Yin and Yang implies you always have to find your balance. And I am very sad about the unbalanced situation that we have at that matter of Philosophical view that i just described. Freedom and being bound.

Besides adapting this poles to chaos and order, freedom - chaos and duty - order. Where you could go with anarchy - chaos - absolute freedom or dictatorship - order - duty. I'm trying to show the extremes are not good in any of these cases. And in Fact I believe the absolute extreme become equal again. Anarchy become dictatorship because the strongest can then dictate what's being done. On the other hand dictatorship is anarchy because those on top can do what ever they like because no one can stop them from.

You can as well adapt them to the economic system. Where capitalism would be freedom (+ anarchy) while communism would be duty (+ dictatorship).

I could go on describing what I think which kind of middle there should be found between those two. And I gladly will if anyone read so far, and is so roughly agreeing.

Hope anyone understood.

Oh dear , no point!

10 minutes wasted

[chaz wyman]

what exactly do you propose here?

it is a text, about balance using a visual aid (your Gaussian Bell Curve), and I understand it (or, I haven't "studied" bell curves but I reckon what they are visually after a quick googling), but what is your point about them?

the title neither seems to be coherent with the topic of your text, what about the text are you referring to as "relativity of mind"?

You are dead right.

[The Voice of Time]

An infinite straight line, is not bounded by two poles. An infinite line is unbounded - the clue is in the name infinite.
[/color]

Actually, you can make a an infinite line bound by two poles. Mathematically infinity is proven by endless grouping (set theory).

Between -1 and 1 you can infinitely dig into decimals (though you could argue he didn't specify decimals I make the assumption he does, as I would have in his situation)

practically this means that if you say anarchism is -1, you could say that anarcho-communism is 1 (maybe not logically but for the example it is sufficient), but after that you can say that all influences by anarchism over the communism in anarcho-communism is a decimal approximation to anarchism. Logically anarcho-communism can never *reach* anarchism, but it can approach it *infinitely*, it can forever add more decimals that seems closer but really are just an unnoticable approach to falling but never actually falling over a cliff.

[chaz wyman]

An infinite straight line, is not bounded by two poles. An infinite line is unbounded - the clue is in the name infinite.
[/color]

Actually, you can make a an infinite line bound by two poles. Mathematically infinity is proven by endless grouping (set theory).

Between -1 and 1 you can infinitely dig into decimals (though you could argue he didn't specify decimals I make the assumption he does, as I would have in his situation)

practically this means that if you say anarchism is -1, you could say that anarcho-communism is 1 (maybe not logically but for the example it is sufficient), but after that you can say that all influences by anarchism over the communism in anarcho-communism is a decimal approximation to anarchism. Logically anarcho-communism can never *reach* anarchism, but it can approach it *infinitely*, it can forever add more decimals that seems closer but really are just an unnoticable approach to falling but never actually falling over a cliff.

Infinite is not the same as infinitely divisible.
anarchism and anarcho-communism cannot be represented with integers with any meaning. For a start they are not in the same spectrum, let alone at polar opposites. You can\t even do that with good and evil.
You might as well ask what does yellow smell like.
Political states; ideas; theories are not one dimensional, they are complex and multifaceted. Difference between them are qualitative not quantitative.

[The Voice of Time]

Actually, you can make a an infinite line bound by two poles. Mathematically infinity is proven by endless grouping (set theory).

Between -1 and 1 you can infinitely dig into decimals (though you could argue he didn't specify decimals I make the assumption he does, as I would have in his situation)

practically this means that if you say anarchism is -1, you could say that anarcho-communism is 1 (maybe not logically but for the example it is sufficient), but after that you can say that all influences by anarchism over the communism in anarcho-communism is a decimal approximation to anarchism. Logically anarcho-communism can never *reach* anarchism, but it can approach it *infinitely*, it can forever add more decimals that seems closer but really are just an unnoticable approach to falling but never actually falling over a cliff.

Infinite is not the same as infinitely divisible.
anarchism and anarcho-communism cannot be represented with integers with any meaning. For a start they are not in the same spectrum, let alone at polar opposites. You can\t even do that with good and evil.
You might as well ask what does yellow smell like.
Political states; ideas; theories are not one dimensional, they are complex and multifaceted. Difference between them are qualitative not quantitative.

If something is "infinitely" it is infinite, it is in the word. Or the word "infinitely" would be malplaced, which it is not since you can endlessly group them ^^ and as political ideas anarchism and anarcho-communism are open to further definition besides the more obvious definitions. As for opposites the names make no "general" sense, I agree, but as political ideas they can be defined by any real property associated strictly with them.

As for the two the first can be defined as "pure" and the second as "impure", and then pure as "voluntarism/individualism" for instance and impure as "collective rule".

But due to the vagueness of such ideas I reckon your point. But my point remains it is possible, and if there were no real properties about them there would never had been anything to talk about anyways when talking about them, so there has to be some values we can refer to when talking about them. The question: "are you anarchist or more of an anarcho-communist?" makes sense and not just as a Boolean True/False value, but also as "approaching" values, as to how much you, as mentioned above, for instance focus on collective rule versus voluntarism/individualism. You could answer that question with "mostly anarchism, but a little communism doesn't bother me", and this can mean that during a day, or week, or month, there is a certain amount of time spent in voluntarism and a slight bit, perhaps a day, in collective effort and rule. (both exclude a "state" of course because it's anarchism, but you don't need a state for collective rule)

Between -1 and 1 you can number the amount of days spent under personal and collective rule and progress between each other that way. If 1 month = 30 days, and 1 day collective effort out of 30, that is a progress of 0.066~ pr. day of collective rule against anarcho-communism and 0.066~ pr. day of personal rule against anarchism.

0 would here mean 15 days collective and 15 days personal rule and effort investment. Infinite approach is that if you proclaim yourself an anarchist with anarcho-communist sympathies, you can endlessly approach 15 days collective and 15 days personal rule, but never actually reach more than 14.999999~ ad infinitum days collective and 15~ days personal rule. When I look at this way I agree though that the "line" itself has to be a segment, but, and here comes my BIG BUT; if you were to WRITE THE SEGMENT DOWN ON PAPER, and also computer screen, infinitely divisible would also mean infinitely enlargement of the segment since you can't work with a segment the size of 14.999999 cm~ without increasing the scale of the parameter.

It doesn't disturb the "idea" perhaps, but practically you must enlarge the segment and you can and must enlarge it infinitely.

[chaz wyman]

Actually, you can make a an infinite line bound by two poles. Mathematically infinity is proven by endless grouping (set theory).

Between -1 and 1 you can infinitely dig into decimals (though you could argue he didn't specify decimals I make the assumption he does, as I would have in his situation)

practically this means that if you say anarchism is -1, you could say that anarcho-communism is 1 (maybe not logically but for the example it is sufficient), but after that you can say that all influences by anarchism over the communism in anarcho-communism is a decimal approximation to anarchism. Logically anarcho-communism can never *reach* anarchism, but it can approach it *infinitely*, it can forever add more decimals that seems closer but really are just an unnoticable approach to falling but never actually falling over a cliff.

Infinite is not the same as infinitely divisible.
anarchism and anarcho-communism cannot be represented with integers with any meaning. For a start they are not in the same spectrum, let alone at polar opposites. You can\t even do that with good and evil.
You might as well ask what does yellow smell like.
Political states; ideas; theories are not one dimensional, they are complex and multifaceted. Difference between them are qualitative not quantitative.

If something is "infinitely" it is infinite, it is in the word.

You are universally wrong. That does not mean you are the universe.

Or the word "infinitely" would be malplaced, which it is not since you can endlessly group them ^^ and as political ideas anarchism and anarcho-communism are open to further definition besides the more obvious definitions. As for opposites the names make no "general" sense, I agree, but as political ideas they can be defined by any real property associated strictly with them.

Political properties are not so easily quantifiable.

As for the two the first can be defined as "pure" and the second as "impure", and then pure as "voluntarism/individualism" for instance and impure as "collective rule".

Nope

But due to the vagueness of such ideas I reckon your point. But my point remains it is possible, and if there were no real properties about them there would never had been anything to talk about anyways when talking about them, so there has to be some values we can refer to when talking about them. The question: "are you anarchist or more of an anarcho-communist?" makes sense and not just as a Boolean True/False value, but also as "approaching" values, as to how much you, as mentioned above, for instance focus on collective rule versus voluntarism/individualism. You could answer that question with "mostly anarchism, but a little communism doesn't bother me", and this can mean that during a day, or week, or month, there is a certain amount of time spent in voluntarism and a slight bit, perhaps a day, in collective effort and rule. (both exclude a "state" of course because it's anarchism, but you don't need a state for collective rule)

Between -1 and 1 you can number the amount of days spent under personal and collective rule and progress between each other that way. If 1 month = 30 days, and 1 day collective effort out of 30, that is a progress of 0.066~ pr. day of collective rule against anarcho-communism and 0.066~ pr. day of personal rule against anarchism.

0 would here mean 15 days collective and 15 days personal rule and effort investment. Infinite approach is that if you proclaim yourself an anarchist with anarcho-communist sympathies, you can endlessly approach 15 days collective and 15 days personal rule, but never actually reach more than 14.999999~ ad infinitum days collective and 15~ days personal rule. When I look at this way I agree though that the "line" itself has to be a segment, but, and here comes my BIG BUT; if you were to WRITE THE SEGMENT DOWN ON PAPER, and also computer screen, infinitely divisible would also mean infinitely enlargement of the segment since you can't work with a segment the size of 14.999999 cm~ without increasing the scale of the parameter.

It doesn't disturb the "idea" perhaps, but practically you must enlarge the segment and you can and must enlarge it infinitely.

[The Voice of Time]

You are universally wrong. That does not mean you are the universe.

Political properties are not so easily quantifiable.

Nope

1) the universe is a singular definitive noun, infinitely is an adverb, infinite is an adjective. The first a single specific substance, the second and third descriptive properties. Adverbs and adjectives are interchangeable, and only differ in speech and writing, not in meaning. Whether something is "endless" or "endlessly" doesn't matter, only for grammar.

2) so if there are no real properties to talk about in the sentence "are you an anarchist or more of an anarcho-communist?" how can it make sense if not so easily quantifiable? Most people would likely ask: "what do you mean?", of course, but then your answer would also be "I mean these and these things" and hence the original question would be answered using those quantifiers. But if you said "I mean how many dogs you want to have?" this makes no sense at all besides some irregular situations, far from the "category" of properties in "anarchism" and "anarcho-communism". Those words are only used as situational symbols, like names of locations, people, brands etc. (like if there were two villages calling themselves "anarchistic village" and "anarcho-communist village" and the only difference was "3 or 6 dogs pr. person"), but those situations are irregular as mentioned and does not make sense in a regular conversation where only the ordinary language is known and defined.

3) the word "anarchism" is in "anarcho-communism", therefore we can assume anarchism is purified of the additional or differing properties of "anarcho-communism".

But unless your next answer involves "yes" or "no" you are reducing this conversation into "likes" and "dislikes", plz give more extensive and analytic arguments or you'll enlighten nobody with your answers, least of all your opponent...

[chaz wyman]

You are universally wrong. That does not mean you are the universe.

Political properties are not so easily quantifiable.

Nope

1) the universe is a singular definitive noun, infinitely is an adverb, infinite is an adjective. The first a single specific substance, the second and third descriptive properties. Adverbs and adjectives are interchangeable, and only differ in speech and writing, not in meaning. Whether something is "endless" or "endlessly" doesn't matter, only for grammar.

And your point is??? in relation to the nurd who started the thread?


2) so if there are no real properties to talk about in the sentence "are you an anarchist or more of an anarcho-communist?" how can it make sense if not so easily quantifiable?

Not in a sense that you can apply a number to it no.,
You are talking about qualities not quantities.



3) the word "anarchism" is in "anarcho-communism", therefore we can assume anarchism is purified of the additional or differing properties of "anarcho-communism".

Yes, qualitative differences not quantitate differences.

But unless your next answer involves "yes" or "no" you are reducing this conversation into "likes" and "dislikes", plz give more extensive and analytic arguments or you'll enlighten nobody with your answers, least of all your opponent...

You are arguing with a phantom.

It seems you have missed the distinction between quality and quantity.

[The Voice of Time]

And your point is??? in relation to the nurd who started the thread?

1) none, you strayed off and I followed you, answering your sentence "you are universally wrong, does not mean you are the universe" with the a comparison trying to expose that your assumption of your answer relating to an indicated question which does not make sense in this situation does not itself make sense. Your indicated question was "is a noun equal to its derived adverb?", when I derived an adverb from an adjective, which are interchangeable and therefore fully logical. You created a straw-man, unless you are gonna tell me you indicated something else and I misunderstood you.

Not in a sense that you can apply a number to it no.,

2) If you have any experience with computer programming you'd reckon what I mean in what I'm going to say, although you could argue it's different I'd say it's pretty much the same. In a program one usually separates "conditional logic", "IF - THEN - FOR" clauses, from "declarative logic", "name = value". The first is a quality I'd say and is answered by Boolean "true/false" values. Think of the fact that any quality in the world is either "true" or "false", either existing or non-existing, or in other words either being or non-being, I find no other meaningful properties of that which you refer to as "quality". He could answer the question of political adherence with either "true", "i am an anarchist" or "false", "i am an anarcho-communist". But, all "true/false" values can in the end be reduced to numerical conditions, as all "true" and "false" values has to be true and false about some kind of hardware (physical) value described in numbers. Boolean logic is always simplifications of equations (argueable if you are a non-physicalist, I am however a physicalist as you see with my choice of comparison). An equation tells what something is, a Bool tells what something "can be", but what "can be" can always be reduced to what something is when you experience it (but not before of course, unless you are psychic and the world appeared completely pre-arranged for you with no "change" to anything). The whole point about the text I've now written is that the values of a political philosophy can be reduced first from formal language describing its full real description as to how it practically unfolds in all possible given situations (you pick just one in the end of course) to Boolean conditional logic, and then from conditional logic to numbers (equations). However, the derived equations is so complexly large you have to pick which part of the Boolean logic you want to decipher into an equation. Btw an equation is a declaring value. So relating to the top answer that they are multi-dimensional, which you said, you can still pick a specific possible situation, apply each of the strict qualities of the philosophies, and then choose individual declarative values to "translate" and then compare them along an infinitely divisible, and therefore infinite, line between integer values -1 and 1.

Of course, I think one of the points (correct me if I'm wrong) which you would want to make is that integer comparisons in one out of a complex of equations cannot speak for the entire complex itself, as something in some other part can rend the chosen comparison invalid for its purposed use. My answer then, however, would be to use, like in computer programming, a class-based system of separation of affairs, like: (value type) INTEGER (memory reference) Anarchism(.)PublicServitude(.)NumberOfDays.PrMonth (name of instance) Anarchism Village = 0, and Anarcho-Communism.PublicServitude.NumberOfDays.PrMonth Anarcho-Communism Village = 30, and then add a conditional logic stating: IF Anarchism Village (instance name automatically carries reference and value type) == 16 THEN Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.PublicServitude = FALSE. And adding a conditional logic of incrementing value at Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.CountedCases.CountCases as such: "IF (Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.PublicServitude == FALSE) OR (x-other-reference == FALSE) OR (y-other-reference == FALSE) etc. THEN +1 Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.CountedCases", and at last at reference Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself the conditional logic: "IF (Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself) >= (Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.CountedCases)/2 (or in other words equal to or less than half itself) THEN RETURN FALSE (this last changes the value of Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself to FALSE).

thanks if you read it all


You are talking about qualities not quantities.

3) I refer to 2) where I state that all qualities are virtually Boolean logic values.

Yes, qualitative differences not quantitate differences.

4) I refer to 2) where I state that all qualities are virtually Boolean logic values. Real qualities, like colour, are for me reducible to the colour spectrum for instance, in meaningful ways, but only if the intention of its use can be stated in its reduced state. But also, real qualities, like colour, are for me so personal that even saying Yellow, cannot refer to them. They are meaningless in pure state, but meaningful when spoken in words or ideas.

You are arguing with a phantom.

5) dunno what a phantom is so plz enlighten me, but this is not an argument, it's a recommendation you are free to like or dislike.

It seems you have missed the distinction between quality and quantity.

6) you seem to think there is any meaningful difference, I, following above arguments, do not given you care to dig into their depths using reductionism

[chaz wyman]

And your point is??? in relation to the nurd who started the thread?

1) none, you strayed off and I followed you, answering your sentence "you are universally wrong, does not mean you are the universe" with the a comparison trying to expose that your assumption of your answer relating to an indicated question which does not make sense in this situation does not itself make sense. Your indicated question was "is a noun equal to its derived adverb?", when I derived an adverb from an adjective, which are interchangeable and therefore fully logical. You created a straw-man, unless you are gonna tell me you indicated something else and I misunderstood you.

Not in a sense that you can apply a number to it no.,

2) If you have any experience with computer programming you'd reckon what I mean in what I'm going to say, although you could argue it's different I'd say it's pretty much the same. In a program one usually separates "conditional logic", "IF - THEN - FOR" clauses, from "declarative logic", "name = value". The first is a quality I'd say and is answered by Boolean "true/false" values. Think of the fact that any quality in the world is either "true" or "false", either existing or non-existing, or in other words either being or non-being, I find no other meaningful properties of that which you refer to as "quality". He could answer the question of political adherence with either "true", "i am an anarchist" or "false", "i am an anarcho-communist". But, all "true/false" values can in the end be reduced to numerical conditions, as all "true" and "false" values has to be true and false about some kind of hardware (physical) value described in numbers. Boolean logic is always simplifications of equations (argueable if you are a non-physicalist, I am however a physicalist as you see with my choice of comparison). An equation tells what something is, a Bool tells what something "can be", but what "can be" can always be reduced to what something is when you experience it (but not before of course, unless you are psychic and the world appeared completely pre-arranged for you with no "change" to anything). The whole point about the text I've now written is that the values of a political philosophy can be reduced first from formal language describing its full real description as to how it practically unfolds in all possible given situations (you pick just one in the end of course) to Boolean conditional logic, and then from conditional logic to numbers (equations). However, the derived equations is so complexly large you have to pick which part of the Boolean logic you want to decipher into an equation. Btw an equation is a declaring value. So relating to the top answer that they are multi-dimensional, which you said, you can still pick a specific possible situation, apply each of the strict qualities of the philosophies, and then choose individual declarative values to "translate" and then compare them along an infinitely divisible, and therefore infinite, line between integer values -1 and 1.

Of course, I think one of the points (correct me if I'm wrong) which you would want to make is that integer comparisons in one out of a complex of equations cannot speak for the entire complex itself, as something in some other part can rend the chosen comparison invalid for its purposed use. My answer then, however, would be to use, like in computer programming, a class-based system of separation of affairs, like: (value type) INTEGER (memory reference) Anarchism(.)PublicServitude(.)NumberOfDays.PrMonth (name of instance) Anarchism Village = 0, and Anarcho-Communism.PublicServitude.NumberOfDays.PrMonth Anarcho-Communism Village = 30, and then add a conditional logic stating: IF Anarchism Village (instance name automatically carries reference and value type) == 16 THEN Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.PublicServitude = FALSE. And adding a conditional logic of incrementing value at Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.CountedCases.CountCases as such: "IF (Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.PublicServitude == FALSE) OR (x-other-reference == FALSE) OR (y-other-reference == FALSE) etc. THEN +1 Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.CountedCases", and at last at reference Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself the conditional logic: "IF (Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself) >= (Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself.CountedCases)/2 (or in other words equal to or less than half itself) THEN RETURN FALSE (this last changes the value of Anarchism.PhilosophyEqualItself to FALSE).

thanks if you read it all


You are talking about qualities not quantities.

3) I refer to 2) where I state that all qualities are virtually Boolean logic values.

Yes, qualitative differences not quantitate differences.

4) I refer to 2) where I state that all qualities are virtually Boolean logic values. Real qualities, like colour, are for me reducible to the colour spectrum for instance, in meaningful ways, but only if the intention of its use can be stated in its reduced state. But also, real qualities, like colour, are for me so personal that even saying Yellow, cannot refer to them. They are meaningless in pure state, but meaningful when spoken in words or ideas.

You are arguing with a phantom.

5) dunno what a phantom is so plz enlighten me, but this is not an argument, it's a recommendation you are free to like or dislike.

It seems you have missed the distinction between quality and quantity.

6) you seem to think there is any meaningful difference, I, following above arguments, do not given you care to dig into their depths using reductionism

10 Input"How many times will I have to tell you?";x
20 For z=1 to x
30 Print tab(z)" don't assume that I have no experience in computer programming"
40 Next z
50 Print "Bye for now"

When you have worked out the difference between a qualitative difference and a quantitative difference then we can have a conversation. Until then Cherio.

[The Voice of Time]

Actually, I decided you were right. Better check out I got it right, and what I found was this:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... servations

Qualitative refers to what a sample is, while quantitative refers to how much of that material is present.

For example, the "squeaky pop test," which involves taking a burning splint and immersing it in a test tube, is a qualitative test. If the gas in the test tube pops, you know you have hydrogen production. In this case, no numbers are being taken - it is only to identify the gas in the test tube. Say you capture the gas released by whatever reaction takes place in the test tube. Measuring the volume of the gas would be the quantitative observation.

"If the gas in the test tube pops" this is propositional logic, Boolean true/false logic, "you know you have hydrogen production".

This can be stated as following: "IF GasTube.Pops == True THEN GasTube.HydrogenProduction = True". Conditional Boolean Logic... No numbers are taken, BUT IT CAN BE REDUCED to numbers. It's like looking AT something but never looking INSIDE it, which can often be sufficient, but also it only gives the outside information. This case is qualitative, but it can at the same time be stated in an equally valid numerical equation of physics. Both would say the same in different logical languages, though from numbers you could also deduce additional information, whereas true/false statements are imperative and does not allow you to ask questions such as "how close to the edge of popping can I take it?" (under normal circumstances this would be observationally meaningless of course, but there should be ways to manipulate the gas as to make it less susceptible and therefore easier to "approach" without "joining in chain reaction").

[chaz wyman]

Actually, I decided you were right. Better check out I got it right, and what I found was this:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_d ... servations

Qualitative refers to what a sample is, while quantitative refers to how much of that material is present.

For example, the "squeaky pop test," which involves taking a burning splint and immersing it in a test tube, is a qualitative test. If the gas in the test tube pops, you know you have hydrogen production. In this case, no numbers are being taken - it is only to identify the gas in the test tube. Say you capture the gas released by whatever reaction takes place in the test tube. Measuring the volume of the gas would be the quantitative observation.

"If the gas in the test tube pops" this is propositional logic, Boolean true/false logic, "you know you have hydrogen production".

This can be stated as following: "IF GasTube.Pops == True THEN GasTube.HydrogenProduction = True". Conditional Boolean Logic... No numbers are taken, BUT IT CAN BE REDUCED to numbers. It's like looking AT something but never looking INSIDE it, which can often be sufficient, but also it only gives the outside information. This case is qualitative, but it can at the same time be stated in an equally valid numerical equation of physics. Both would say the same in different logical languages, though from numbers you could also deduce additional information, whereas true/false statements are imperative and does not allow you to ask questions such as "how close to the edge of popping can I take it?" (under normal circumstances this would be observationally meaningless of course, but there should be ways to manipulate the gas as to make it less susceptible and therefore easier to "approach" without "joining in chain reaction").

Or to put it more simply....
If you have 10 point of capitalism and want to cancel it out you will need 11 points of communism, leaving 11-10=1 point of communism.
... is ridicuous

[The Voice of Time]

Or to put it more simply....
If you have 10 point of capitalism and want to cancel it out you will need 11 points of communism, leaving 11-10=1 point of communism.
... is ridicuous

yes, because you haven't defined by which parameters this name "capitalism" and this other name "communism" should be defined. A parameter which you are free to pick, given that it strictly adheres to the concept "capitalism" and the concept "communism".

Names in a computer program neither gives much sense before you suddenly see it printed on screen as something relating to daily life.

But in the question "is the Soviet Union a communist country or capitalist country?" you could strictly answer it multiple ways, and neither may be wrong, but one would be more accepted than the other as the way of counting. You could count: "how many people identify themselves as communist?", or "how many communist policies are there versus capitalist policies?" or "how many of the parliament call themselves communists?", or you could count multiple of these to measure the general influence of communism in the country versus the influence of capitalism.

But, and here things become interesting: is CHINA a communist country? Definitely it is authoritarian, but those things usually associated with communism seems to have drifted off from chinese policy-making, and now it seems more a capitalist regime.

The Chinese government calls themselves communist, BUT, how can we tell them they are not? We can neither say they are fully capitalist, because there are parts of the policy-making which still adheres to communism, and the government doesn't have the same opinion about free market policy as in the US for instance although you could call it yet a pretty open market in many ways. How do you agree upon a quality for which is neither true or false but something in between? Scientists would of course normally say that there needs to be some kind of "measurement" of political influence here, and if everybody agreed on this measurement, could you object to it just because it is "a quality"?