user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Welcome to the forum

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by -1- » Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:58 pm

Those who want to avoid getting entangled in arguments with this notorious idiot, please note the equivalency of the user under a new, different alias.

Proof:
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:39 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:38 pm

That's true. I agree.
OK then you will have to explain yourself:
-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:57 am
It is true that I am an atheist
While also...
-1- wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 3:24 am
Timeseeker argued for the existence of god, and when I called him a believer, he denied it, he stated he was an atheist. This was the push to put him on iggi.)
P.S I am Logik/TimeSeeker. And you are an idiot - if you ignore all atheists who argue for gods, then you should probably put yourself on ignore ;)

Univalence
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:10 pm

I am the idiot?

You are arguing for an "omniscient being" while claiming to be an atheist!
You are DOING the exact same thing you called me out for - you fucking hypocrite :lol: :lol: :lol:
-1- wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 3:24 am
Timeseeker argued for the existence of god, and when I called him a believer, he denied it, he stated he was an atheist. This was the push to put him on iggi.)

Timeseeker and I had a long and very enjoyable conversation here, but his reversal left a bad taste in the mouth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything. In monotheistic religions, such as Sikhism and the Abrahamic religions, this is an attribute of God.

I mean, you were the one posting about thermodynamics just yesterday. You can't even connect the dots between entropy and omniscience ?
-1- wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 5:49 pm
What ideal and work can *save the world*?
Answer: the abolishment of the third law of thermodynamics. You can do it if you try. Remember, nothing is impossible.
Last edited by Univalence on Sat Jun 01, 2019 3:44 pm, edited 10 times in total.

Univalence
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:11 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:21 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:16 pm
What makes you think that I think that science is not mere opinion? The very fact that any scientific claim is only that if and only if it has a potential to be proven wrong, makes all scientific findings absolutely into opinions.
Yes. I mean exactly that.

If evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability is not a sufficient criterion for "objectivity" then nothing is.

Your view is tantamount to "objectivity requires omniscience".
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:27 pm
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:21 pm

If evidentiary weight, testability and falsifiability is not a sufficient criterion for "objectivity" then nothing is.
That's exactly how it is. Nothing is objective knowledge that humans possess. All human knowledge is opinion.

Objective knowledge exists, as far as reality exists; except it's beyond human grasp.
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:35 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:30 pm
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:35 pm
Yet you accuse me of robbing "objectivity" of its meaning?
Yes. Just because humans are incapable of possessing it, it does not mean it is impossible.
But it does mean that it's impossible for humans. And therefore any claims of "possibility" you make implies that you are thinking of another kind of entity.
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:39 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:38 pm
But it does mean that it's impossible for humans. And therefore any claims of possibility you make implies that you are thinking of another kind of entity.
That's true. I agree.
OK then you will have to explain yourself:
-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:57 am
It is true that I am an atheist
While also...
-1- wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 3:24 am
Timeseeker argued for the existence of god, and when I called him a believer, he denied it, he stated he was an atheist. This was the push to put him on iggi.)
P.S I am Logik/TimeSeeker. And you are an idiot - if you ignore all atheists who argue for gods, then you should probably put yourself on ignore ;)
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:56 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:49 pm
To show you how wrong you are: You think that a different type of entity can exist only if it's god. That's inherent in your argument. That is not at all necessarily needed, however, for my argument.
It is inherent to your argument, only you are ignorant as to why.

Any entity which is capable of unfalsifiable/objective knowledge is functionally equivalent to the Christian omniscient God.

You don’t know that? Thermodynamics tells you that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_demon

Go fuck yourself indeed. You are a theist with an identity crisis ;)

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3523
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:58 pm

-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:58 pm
Those who want to avoid getting entangled in arguments with this notorious idiot, please note the equivalency of the user under a new, different alias.

Proof:
Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:39 pm
-1- wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 12:38 pm

That's true. I agree.
OK then you will have to explain yourself:
-1- wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:57 am
It is true that I am an atheist
While also...
-1- wrote:
Thu May 02, 2019 3:24 am
Timeseeker argued for the existence of god, and when I called him a believer, he denied it, he stated he was an atheist. This was the push to put him on iggi.)
P.S I am Logik/TimeSeeker. And you are an idiot - if you ignore all atheists who argue for gods, then you should probably put yourself on ignore ;)
First of all...he is not an idiot. I do not agree with the totality of his premises; however he definitely without a shadow of doubt in my mind is one of the brightest "philosophers" on this forum...and probably in "real" life too. What he represents is pure evil egocentric, however his genius is to be respected and commended.

People hate him because he makes everyone look stupid...and the truth is the majority of people here are.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2911
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:13 am

Time Seeker Logik Univalence is for me as well the most intelligent member of the forum
I think he has a very analytical mind and we could all learn from him if we really want to

Univalence
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Univalence » Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:17 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:58 pm
What he represents is pure evil egocentric, however his genius is to be respected and commended.

People hate him because he makes everyone look stupid...and the truth is the majority of people here are.
That's one way to mis-understand my position. You draw no distinction between egocentrism and rational/moral egoism.

Game theory.

My goal doesn't depend on your goal.
My strategy depends on your strategy.
The opening move is yours.

If it is only by public humiliation that people choose to see their own errors - so be it.
I am happy to be the "bad guy" if it means you get smarter in the process.

The rational egoist recognizes that a world full of smart people is better.
And there are none so dumb as those who believe in, and pursue Truth for its own sake.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3523
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:37 pm

Univalence wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:17 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 11:58 pm
What he represents is pure evil egocentric, however his genius is to be respected and commended.

People hate him because he makes everyone look stupid...and the truth is the majority of people here are.
That's one way to mis-understand my position. You draw no distinction between egocentrism and rational/moral egoism.

Game theory.

My goal doesn't depend on your goal.
My strategy depends on your strategy.
The opening move is yours.

If it is only by public humiliation that people choose to see their own errors - so be it.
I am happy to be the "bad guy" if it means you get smarter in the process.

The rational egoist recognizes that a world full of smart people is better.
And there are none so dumb as those who believe in, and pursue Truth for its own sake.
If I misunderstand you...it is my choice under game theory. Understanding does not have to be mutual...as a matter of fact it is strictly assumed and does not have to be anything. It can be "void" for all I care. Also game theory, when applied to language games, necessitates a form of connection between egocentrism and rational/moral egoism in such a manner where both terms (as premise axioms upon which an argument is grounded) effectively are "beneficial" to another or in simpler terms "connected".


I don't have to draw a distinction because if I do I would be repeating a process of divergence that effectively negates any choice I have in the matter. You mistake free will for strictly individualism and seperation.

Actually what determines the opening move in itself is a game considering all games are grounded in finding an advantage. Following recursion, under the context of it existing as a principle, the ultimate game is one of creating games...something computation cannot do and is subject to the role of the philosopher.

However:

Nice assumption, but if choice is merely a theory then this theory is grounded in its acceptance by a group of individuas; hence it is a process of group agreement where certain psychological patterns are repeated in such a way that a structure is formed no different than the repeating of patterns results in natural formations such sandstone or quartz. In these respects there is no choice as this "choice" is strictly just a manifestation of patterns repeatedly. However, much like sandstone or quartz, the nature of "objectivity" as in group agreement manifests under constant variation. In simpler terms one one group agrees on (ie is "objective") another is not. Under this, what you label as "choice", is really just a repeated process of divergence which in itself is a pattern not subject to itself without contradiction.

Univalence
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:02 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:37 pm
If I misunderstand you...it is my choice under game theory.
That's all you needed to say. If you choose to misunderstand. I choose to ignore you.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:37 pm
Understanding does not have to be mutual...as a matter of fact it is strictly assumed and does not have to be anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

In game theory, Aumann's agreement theorem is a theorem which demonstrates that rational agents with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3523
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:12 pm

Univalence wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:02 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:37 pm
If I misunderstand you...it is my choice under game theory.
That's all you needed to say. If you choose to misunderstand. I choose to ignore you.

I am pointing out a contradiction in game theory as game theory, when subject to its own parameters, is self-negating.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 6:37 pm
Understanding does not have to be mutual...as a matter of fact it is strictly assumed and does not have to be anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27 ... nt_theorem

In game theory, Aumann's agreement theorem is a theorem which demonstrates that rational agents with common knowledge of each other's beliefs cannot agree to disagree.


First: Most parties barely know what their beliefs are when pressed against new outside variables that put those beliefs into question; thus the premise where a "common knowledge" does not allow agreement is a fallacy given the introduction of new variables that effectively necessitate the individuals belief as a constant state of change. In simpler terms, belief is grounded in a constant state of change. With this axiom the observers can agree that they will eventually disagree, with "agreement" fundamentally being equivalent to "a rate of exchange" in this context.


Second: Actually they can agree and disagree at the same time with no contradiction...thus agree to disagree.

If I have knowledge of your belief in X being composed of Y attributes, and you have knowledge of my belief that A is compose of B attributes.

And we both understand eachother's belief's perfectly in the respect we "agree" then (X ∋ Y)=(A∋B). (With "∋" meaning "contains as an element"). Thus what we observe is z/(X ∋ Y)=(A∋B)=z as variations of the same system no different than 1/(x-1=a+2)=1 where x=2, 3-1... and a=-1,2-3,... etc.

The beliefs are variations of 1 core belief which effectively assumes itself naturally into the original core belief while being a variation of it. An example of this would be:

Belief: Religion is a dogma. Roman Catholicism is a dogmatic religion composed of Y beliefs. Islam is a dogmatic religion composed of B beliefs. Y beliefs and B beliefs are elements of Roman Catholicism and Islam respectively but both are equivalent as religious dogmas.

Thus a belief is a set of relations, that while the relations may differ as to how certain variables relate, the variables however different maintained a unity through how they relate in and of themselves. So using the math example the variables of x-1 and a+2 are fundamentally different but they have a constant "way" of relating through subtraction that effectively results in the same fundamental answer. The variables can agreeable be different and still end in the same manner of summation (ie "1").

Third: The constant difference in the variables of belief are strictly inversions of a 1 unified set of beliefs. While one party may understand "love" as existing as specific actions within a given context, and another may observe it as a differing set of actions within the same context, this percievable difference where killing is right/wrong within the same context is subject to outside contexts where effectively both can be right to disagree. For example a man steps into my house and I shoot him, this is a moral form of "killing" given certain contexts of social barriers within my society. I may simply be in a drug infested neighborhood with no moral option for given thought to the action given the boundary of "time" in determining a moral decision. In another context shooting the man may be wrong. In that neighborhood everyone is friendly and peaceful and "time" allows one to question the man's intent. Both contexts of "killing" occurring within the same framework of the man entering the house, but these contexts require further outside contexts in determining them.

Thus one can have the same context of understanding, but this context still requires a seperate contexts which necessitates an agreement in disagreement of certain terms.




Univalence
Posts: 497
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

Re: user Univalence is self-admittedly timeseeker/Logik.

Post by Univalence » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:53 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:12 pm
Belief: Religion is a dogma. Roman Catholicism is a dogmatic religion composed of Y beliefs. Islam is a dogmatic religion composed of B beliefs. Y beliefs and B beliefs are elements of Roman Catholicism and Islam respectively but both are equivalent as religious dogmas.

Thus a belief is a set of relations, that while the relations may differ as to how certain variables relate
This is a silly conception of belief. It is incomplete. It fails to account for the mechanism which converts that which you verbalize as your beliefs into actions, and so it fails to adequately address performative contradictions.

You claim to despise computation, but you use computers.

What then is the truth-value of your verbalized beliefs?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests