Foundations of Synthesis As Absolute Truth and Relativistic Truth

[Logik]

Because you are selling a product noone is buying (here).

I am simple arguing that the universe exists through certain core principles whether you like it or not.

Suppose that it didn't. Then what?

[/color]

The problem of practicality is that it is not the be all end all of problem solving. Many practical endeavors are not really practical when you apply an infinite regress to them.

No shit. Many practical ideas ideas become impractical when you appeal to infinities. Because infinities don't exist in practice.

Take for example building a house. What people really need is simple. Warmth, security, cleanliness, etc. They do not need a mansion. Why do they need these things? Because it enables a sense of balance or equilibrium. The rooms enable shelter from extreme weather, warmth (physical and psychological) to counter the cold, cleanliness to a maintain some unified sense of health.

However the nature of practicality, because it is never really defined, also argues the mansion is practical as a continual redefinition of "need" (which practicality does not do) is subject to a continual regress, thus practicality is subject to the same regress.

The nature of any definition is defined fundamentally by its ability to maintain some form of equilibrium between the abstract and physical, abstract and abstract, physical and physical natures of reality we exist through in order to negate suffering where it can be negated.

Is it practical to work 80 hours a week if it robs you of your physical or psychological health? The same applies obviously for doing "nothing".

Is it practical to create a new tool to acquire more material goods as the expense of social cohesion (people working helping eachother) and acquiring more material possession that not only cause a problem in the environment but effectively requires a constant upkeep that robs one of time?

You see my point?

You have focused all your attention on aesthetics. Way to not make a point.

Form follows function.

The explicit thing that people expect from a house is security. Which implies that people do NOT expect the house to collapse and kill them. The 2nd thing people expect is thermal isolation during cold weather.

Structural integrity and heat insulation. Science.

Not really. All philosophy tries to reduce, induct or just flat out give definition to the nature of phenomenon. It is not just "philosophy" itself that does it, but effectively the human condition which is philosophical, or knowledge oriented by nature.

We exist through observation, this observation is rooted in self-evidence where there is not only just a subject-objective paradigm but in clearer terms a sense of awareness of "I" and "other I".

Before you can do philosophy(sophistry) first you have to remain alive and fairly safe. That's where science/medicine focuses - keeping you alive for longer.

All of this is founded in the act of definition. In these respects, the nature of consciousness as rooted in definition, necessitate all of being as having some degree of a self-evident or "axiomatic" nature.

Why do you need to define things?

But what you argue is strictly just "probabilities" and "relativity" at its root...that is it, but that is not all of logic.

What I argue is that inductive reasoning is mandatory in this universe. So - you don't have to use probability theory if you have a better tool.
Do you have a better tool?

Flying is much safer, but it doesn't solve the problem that people have to fly around to begin with.

So what do you propose to solve the problem? De-globalize society?
Prevent people from traveling?

Now this statement I just said sounds absurd, but the truth is people have to fly more because they cannot support themselves where they are at...they are fundamentally seperated from the environment in which they live.

What? What percentage of the population commutes to work using an airplane?

It is just a relativistic loop and technological progress is just a fracturing of the human condition and any sense of "quality" that allows for a heightened sense of pleasure.

Nonsense. If you want to travel from China to USA using a ship - you are welcome to. I value my time so I fly. It's faster.
Pleasure? Sure. We get 75 years on this Earth. Why would I want to waste any second of it?

What utility? How can you keep "maximising" utility when utility is fundamentally grounded in a strict progress that never ends, thus nothing changes.

Yea "nothing" changes. It still takes 100 days to get from UK to China with a ship. NOT.

The fact you cannot respond to these premises, as argued in other threads, only shows what you push is grounded in contradiction and makes no sense.

Alternative hypothesis: your understanding is limited.

And reducing everything to "utility" is not a sense of metaphysics itself?

Call it what you will. It's a closed system. Symbol-manipulations is by humans for humans.

All the contradictions are posted in the math/logic section, don't push your religion here....and it is a religion as it is grounded in contradiction by nature; hence is necessitated by belief.

You are pushing the Prime Triad religion. Why is mine not allowed?

Carpentry requires mathematics, as well as just basic everyday finance. However this act of "measurement" is grounded on the ability to maintain an equilibrium. Mathematics, when idolized, is not able to maintain an equilibrium.

Many states of equilibrium exist. Which one are you referring to?

Math is just made up, it is a perspective, nothing more.

Yes. All language is made up. All language is just a perspective and nothing more. All language is abstract.

We made it up because it's useful! Apparently communicating is something we care about.
We also made up tools for reasoning about and understanding the world.

If you don't like them - don't use them.

There was a documentary I seen a while back about the west virginia coal mines. The whole region was prosperous and everyone was happy. They worked and when they did not work they spent time with there family and friends.

Then they starting using large scale automation, which not only decimated the labor population (causing the area to morally and culturally collapse; hence having less "quality" lives), but also strip the area of resources faster than could be maintained.

Now the area is filled with drug addicts and a general sense of despair.

Killing the human spirit is genocide.

1. Correlation is not causation.
2. You haven't got the slightest clue when it comes to economics.

WHY do you think they moved towards automation to begin with? Economies of scale? Market pressure? Competition from other coal mines?
How long do you think the mine would've remained in business if they DIDN'T automate given that everybody else was automating?

What you seem to be upset is that the mine ran out of resources. Yeah! That would've happened in 10 or 100 years. Because there are no infinities in practice. Economies don't have the luxiry of infinite resources.

[Eodnhoj7]

Because you are selling a product noone is buying (here).

I am simple arguing that the universe exists through certain core principles whether you like it or not.

Suppose that it didn't. Then what?

[/color]

The problem of practicality is that it is not the be all end all of problem solving. Many practical endeavors are not really practical when you apply an infinite regress to them.

No shit. Many practical ideas ideas become impractical when you appeal to infinities. Because infinities don't exist in practice.


Actually a loss of time result from quality pleasure observes one example of an infinity in practice.

Second all finiteneness is only justified if there is an infinite progress of finite variables that stem from these variables. If all truth is finite, then eventually all arguments about "finiteness" itself become untrue.

Take for example building a house. What people really need is simple. Warmth, security, cleanliness, etc. They do not need a mansion. Why do they need these things? Because it enables a sense of balance or equilibrium. The rooms enable shelter from extreme weather, warmth (physical and psychological) to counter the cold, cleanliness to a maintain some unified sense of health.

However the nature of practicality, because it is never really defined, also argues the mansion is practical as a continual redefinition of "need" (which practicality does not do) is subject to a continual regress, thus practicality is subject to the same regress.

The nature of any definition is defined fundamentally by its ability to maintain some form of equilibrium between the abstract and physical, abstract and abstract, physical and physical natures of reality we exist through in order to negate suffering where it can be negated.

Is it practical to work 80 hours a week if it robs you of your physical or psychological health? The same applies obviously for doing "nothing".

Is it practical to create a new tool to acquire more material goods as the expense of social cohesion (people working helping eachother) and acquiring more material possession that not only cause a problem in the environment but effectively requires a constant upkeep that robs one of time?

You see my point?

You have focused all your attention on aesthetics. Way to not make a point.

Form follows function.

That is the point, most practical decisions are reduced to aesthetics, basic needs are easy and simple to acquire.


The explicit thing that people expect from a house is security. Which implies that people do NOT expect the house to collapse and kill them. The 2nd thing people expect is thermal isolation during cold weather.

Structural integrity and heat insulation. Science.

Yes and people have done that intuitively for thousands of years and lived into there 70's and 80's.

Not really. All philosophy tries to reduce, induct or just flat out give definition to the nature of phenomenon. It is not just "philosophy" itself that does it, but effectively the human condition which is philosophical, or knowledge oriented by nature.

We exist through observation, this observation is rooted in self-evidence where there is not only just a subject-objective paradigm but in clearer terms a sense of awareness of "I" and "other I".

Before you can do philosophy(sophistry) first you have to remain alive and fairly safe. That's where science/medicine focuses - keeping you alive for longer.


ROFL!!!! You are right, I mean good thing stephen hawking was around during socrates, or modern medicine for parmenides.

All of this is founded in the act of definition. In these respects, the nature of consciousness as rooted in definition, necessitate all of being as having some degree of a self-evident or "axiomatic" nature.

Why do you need to define things?

I don't need to, I just do....turn that into a lambda calculus statement, then into a probability.

But what you argue is strictly just "probabilities" and "relativity" at its root...that is it, but that is not all of logic.

What I argue is that inductive reasoning is mandatory in this universe. So - you don't have to use probability theory if you have a better tool.
Do you have a better tool?

Inductive, deductive and abductive. Everything you push is belief. We do not know or not know when our deaths or the "end of it all" is, we know there is an end but nature observes all ends have a simultaneous beginning...

Flying is much safer, but it doesn't solve the problem that people have to fly around to begin with.

So what do you propose to solve the problem? De-globalize society?
Prevent people from traveling?


Simple solution, people become of the aware of the people and environment around them and in front of them.

Now this statement I just said sounds absurd, but the truth is people have to fly more because they cannot support themselves where they are at...they are fundamentally seperated from the environment in which they live.

What? What percentage of the population commutes to work using an airplane?

The average american moves 11 times, taking the plane into account at a minimum of 3 times for work, whatever, and the truth is everyone is just running everywhere.

It is just a relativistic loop and technological progress is just a fracturing of the human condition and any sense of "quality" that allows for a heightened sense of pleasure.

Nonsense. If you want to travel from China to USA using a ship - you are welcome to. I value my time so I fly. It's faster.
Pleasure? Sure. We get 75 years on this Earth. Why would I want to waste any second of it?


That is my point, what type of quality pleasure do computers provide. They are distraction. And because everyone is stuck using them, I cannot even walk down the street without seeing someone on an iphone, I am stuck.

What utility? How can you keep "maximising" utility when utility is fundamentally grounded in a strict progress that never ends, thus nothing changes.

Yea "nothing" changes. It still takes 100 days to get from UK to China with a ship. NOT.

Who cares about going or not going to china unless you are trying to leave permanently.

The fact you cannot respond to these premises, as argued in other threads, only shows what you push is grounded in contradiction and makes no sense.

Alternative hypothesis: your understanding is limited.

False, understanding is limit.

And reducing everything to "utility" is not a sense of metaphysics itself?

Call it what you will. It's a closed system. Symbol-manipulations is by humans for humans.

And the act of reflection, the base quality of metaphysics, is not what composes the human condition itself?

All the contradictions are posted in the math/logic section, don't push your religion here....and it is a religion as it is grounded in contradiction by nature; hence is necessitated by belief.

You are pushing the Prime Triad religion. Why is mine not allowed?


How is space a religious belief? The munchausseen trillema exists, it destroys all other logical systems...hence just build a logical system on it.

Carpentry requires mathematics, as well as just basic everyday finance. However this act of "measurement" is grounded on the ability to maintain an equilibrium. Mathematics, when idolized, is not able to maintain an equilibrium.

Many states of equilibrium exist. Which one are you referring to?

With providing a quality life where people are focused on who and what is in front of them and not running around chasing whatever is in the wind.

Math is just made up, it is a perspective, nothing more.

Yes. All language is made up. All language is just a perspective and nothing more. All language is abstract.

We made it up because it's useful! Apparently communicating is something we care about.
We also made up tools for reasoning about and understanding the world.

If you don't like them - don't use them.
Actually all language is grounded in space...what can be more abstract than space?

There was a documentary I seen a while back about the west virginia coal mines. The whole region was prosperous and everyone was happy. They worked and when they did not work they spent time with there family and friends.

Then they starting using large scale automation, which not only decimated the labor population (causing the area to morally and culturally collapse; hence having less "quality" lives), but also strip the area of resources faster than could be maintained.

Now the area is filled with drug addicts and a general sense of despair.

Killing the human spirit is genocide.

1. Correlation is not causation.
2. You haven't got the slightest clue when it comes to economics.


Actually it was a cause. The miner's were unemployed because of the machines, they lost work, moral went down. They even said this directly.

Yes I do, it is all about making the best use of one's time.




WHY do you think they moved towards automation to begin with? Economies of scale? Market pressure? Competition from other coal mines?
How long do you think the mine would've remained in business if they DIDN'T automate given that everybody else was automating?

That is the point, the market itself is eventually going to annihilate all or most of human involvement by reducing the average man into a pig in a trough.




What you seem to be upset is that the mine ran out of resources. Yeah! That would've happened in 10 or 100 years. Because there are no infinities in practice. Economies don't have the luxiry of infinite resources.


Not that it ran out but the rate it ran out, as well as the human condition being annihilated...for what? A better cup of coffee we cannot enjoy because we are rushing to go to some meeting?

[Logik]

Actually a loss of time result from quality pleasure observes one example of an infinity in practice.

No idea what that means. If you waste your life away - you have wasted 75 years.

Second all finiteneness is only justified if there is an infinite progress of finite variables that stem from these variables. If all truth is finite, then eventually all arguments about "finiteness" itself become untrue.

No. You don't understand the implications of logical completeness and the infinite monkeys theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

In mathematical logic and metalogic, a formal system is called complete with respect to a particular property if every formula having the property can be derived using that system, i.e. is one of its theorems; otherwise the system is said to be incomplete.

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

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Infinite monkeys bashing at a typewriter for an infinite amount of time will produce infinitely many truths.

You don't have infinite time OR infinite monkeys.

That is the point, most practical decisions are reduced to aesthetics, basic needs are easy and simple to acquire.

So how simple and easy is it to avoid dying at 35?

Yes and people have done that intuitively for thousands of years and lived into there 70's and 80's.

observe how you focus on the outliers of the statistical distribution when it suits your argument.
When I discuss things in general I am speaking of the median age. The 50th percentile.

The median age in 2019 is 70-75 years.
The average life-span of the ancient greeks and romans was 30 to 35 years.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevit ... ry-2224054

ROFL!!!! You are right, I mean good thing stephen hawking was around during socrates, or modern medicine for parmenides.

Thanks for making my argument for me. Lets compare apples to apples then. Stephen Hawking developed ALS in his 20s. Despite that he was able to make incredible contributions to physics for the next 50 years.

Imagine Socrates and Paremenides developed ALS in their age and time. Do you think anybody would remember their names today?
Computerised, internet-connected wheel chairs? ROFL! Access to the world's knowledge without so much as getting up from your chair. ROFL.

I don't need to, I just do....turn that into a lambda calculus statement, then into a probability.

It seems Nature's programming is still in charge of that body... Why do you do what you do?



[/color]

Inductive, deductive and abductive. Everything you push is belief. We do not know or not know when our deaths or the "end of it all" is, we know there is an end but nature observes all ends have a simultaneous beginning...

Call it belief. Call it milk&cookies. This is what we have in 2019 - this is what we use for thought. Do you have anything better to offer or are you just annoyed that we are STILL this stupid ?

Simple solution, people become of the aware of the people and environment around them and in front of them.

What does awareness have to do with traveling? I am aware of my environment and my society. I spend 95% of my time with them.
The other 5% - i still want to travel. I still prefer to get out of my comfort zone/echo chamber and experience different cultures.

And I prefer traveling with an airplane to traveling with a ship.

taking the plane into account at a minimum of 3 times for work

Is that 3 times a week, 3 times a year or 3 times in a lifetime. Your sampling interval sure makes all the difference to your argument.

I fly 8-10 times a year just because I want to.

That is my point, what type of quality pleasure do computers provide.

My computer automates all my monthly payments - so I don't have to. Saves me 2-3 hours a week.
My computer automates my grocery shopping - so I don't have to. Saves me 2-3 hours a week.
My computer keeps track of my investment portfolios. Alerts me when things change for the better OR for the worse.
My computer keeps track of my tenants' payments. Alerts me when they haven't paid me (so I don't have to).
My computer helps me model/track/predict my income, my expenditures. When I over-spend - I get an alert.
When my goals are at risk - I get an alert. All these things my computer does. I would have to do by hand.

But because the computer does them FOR me - I get to travel 8-10 times a year.

I have more time to enjoy life AND I live longer than the ancient greeks!

Who cares about going or not going to china unless you are trying to leave permanently.

I care!

If it takes 100 days to move from A to B and there are only 365 days in a year. If I were to take 3.65 trips a year that is 100% of my TIME gone!
Do the math.

I travel 8-10 times a year! And that's just for leisure - not work.

False, understanding is limit.

No. Current understanding is current limit. Better understanding removes limits.

And the act of reflection, the base quality of metaphysics, is not what composes the human condition itself?

If it synthesises a human being that makes good decisions - so be it.
But ultimately - you end up with decision theory. The theory of choice.

How is space a religious belief? The munchausseen trillema exists, it destroys all other logical systems...hence just build a logical system on it.

The Munchhausen Trillema only speaks of the problem of justification in epistemology. That is only 50% of the problem.
The other 50% is the problem of criterion. It goes roughly as follows: even IF justification was possible (lets assume that you have solved it) how much justification is sufficient?

With providing a quality life where people are focused on who and what is in front of them and not running around chasing whatever is in the wind.

And yet you chase the Prime Triad when you have Lambda calculus.

what can be more abstract than space?

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

Actually it was a cause. The miner's were unemployed because of the machines, they lost work, moral went down. They even said this directly.

If the machines didn't arrive. The miners would still have depleted the resources of the mine in 50-100 years.
The economic slump would have eventually ensued.

That is the point, the market itself is eventually going to annihilate all or most of human involvement by reducing the average man into a pig in a trough.

Yes. That's what happens when you trade your time for monetary reward. So don't do that!
I don't get paid by the hour - I get paid by the value I create.

Not that it ran out but the rate it ran out, as well as the human condition being annihilated...for what? A better cup of coffee we cannot enjoy because we are rushing to go to some meeting?

Then what is your argument exactly? The mine created jobs. Jobs resulted in economic prosperity. The mine had finite resources. When they run out - so does economic prosperity.

You don't seem to be celebrating the economic prosperity of mining, but you are despairing the slump that followed the exhaustion of the finite resources?

What do you think will happen to humanity when we exhaust the finite resource of "land"?
Or the finite resource of "food"?
Or the finite resource of "energy"?
Or the finite resource of "oxygen"?
Or the finite resource of "time"?

[planetlonely23]

Clearly there isn't a unique way to solve things or having a conclusion, using the a paradigm which include case A, case B and case C, we obtain several results, First All have a different status, Second At the beginning they diverge even from themselves and finally finding a way in common, Third they converge together because of the similarity, that later will be probed as something asymmetric, to contrast their diffence but from the same root.
Fourth There isn't a link between them but they symmetrically expand their branches of thinking in several ways, to finally find a way with similarities.

And Fifth If they are made to create a group and the meaning of this group is the group itself which single part of it doesn't mean anything, but their inverse status as the result as asymmetric but with the same result and trying to duplicate or reproduce in advance is giving you a particular case that not differ from the rest is only growing in the same way, that means the metamorphosis in this cases is not possible, because the truth from the beginning is the result of the end without subsequent changes.

The synthesis of this is that nothing is possible without the primary part where all started, Therefore there ins't a absolute truth, but we can conclude with the extract that everything have a root.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually a loss of time result from quality pleasure observes one example of an infinity in practice.

No idea what that means. If you waste your life away - you have wasted 75 years.

Second all finiteneness is only justified if there is an infinite progress of finite variables that stem from these variables. If all truth is finite, then eventually all arguments about "finiteness" itself become untrue.

No. You don't understand the implications of logical completeness and the infinite monkeys theorem.

From the above source:

"In mathematical logic and metalogic, a formal system is called complete with respect to a particular property if every formula having the property can be derived using that system, i.e. is one of its theorems; otherwise the system is said to be incomplete. The term "complete" is also used without qualification, with differing meanings depending on the context, mostly referring to the property of semantical validity. Intuitively, a system is called complete in this particular sense, if it can derive every formula that is true."

No AI can have a logically complete system when the symbols used to derive it in themselves are incomplete. Completeness is strictly a fallacy of circularity in modern logic, while logically impossible for an AI without requires the base axioms to be assumed; hence the following framework is an assumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)

In mathematical logic and metalogic, a formal system is called complete with respect to a particular property if every formula having the property can be derived using that system, i.e. is one of its theorems; otherwise the system is said to be incomplete.

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

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

Infinite monkeys bashing at a typewriter for an infinite amount of time will produce infinitely many truths.

You don't have infinite time OR infinite monkeys.

Actually the premised where space folding through space resulting in infinite space and spatial structures, necessitates the infinite monkey scenario as an extension of a the munchauseen trillemma and as such matter's little. Considering the nature of consciousness is grounded in the mucnchauseen trillema, hence space, the axioms resulting in the framework for completeness in an AI system are infinite resulting in infinite AI's and we are left with the same problem.

That is the point, most practical decisions are reduced to aesthetics, basic needs are easy and simple to acquire.

So how simple and easy is it to avoid dying at 35?

How can you avoid "unknowing"? Noone knows what there fate is.

Yes and people have done that intuitively for thousands of years and lived into there 70's and 80's.

observe how you focus on the outliers of the statistical distribution when it suits your argument.
When I discuss things in general I am speaking of the median age. The 50th percentile.

Not really, what I am showing is that using statistics as a foundation to improve human life also statistally shows statistics does not work. Statistics negates itself...it is absurd.

The median age in 2019 is 70-75 years.
The average life-span of the ancient greeks and romans was 30 to 35 years.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/longevit ... ry-2224054


I am not talking about ancient greece and the 50th percentile matter's little...natural selection.

Go back further, in any mythology or world religion, and human lifespan was considered significantly longer or equal to what we consider a lifespan today. Add the question of quality over quantity (one can live 70 years of life experience in 50 years, but live to be 90 and have a low quality of life) and life span means very little.

ROFL!!!! You are right, I mean good thing stephen hawking was around during socrates, or modern medicine for parmenides.

Thanks for making my argument for me. Lets compare apples to apples then. Stephen Hawking developed ALS in his 20s. Despite that he was able to make incredible contributions to physics for the next 50 years.

Imagine Socrates and Paremenides developed ALS in their age and time. Do you think anybody would remember their names today?
Computerised, internet-connected wheel chairs? ROFL! Access to the world's knowledge without so much as getting up from your chair. ROFL.

ROFL!!!! Look at the generation coming up now...do you think anyone will care about Hawking or anything at all? He will be a forgotten footnote given the entropy of time, no different than the philosopher's of old you claim contributed little. You have to remember contribution is relative to the time period and is completely contextual.

Also

You forget that the "world knowledge" you depend on was developed by men by strict will-power and faith alone, prior to computers or any artificial implement. Add that fact that ALS may be a biproduct of an industrialized lifestyle, or the fact that mortality alone may have cause any of these men to pursue there knowledge...etc....and you are left with a million what ifs.

Physics is a religion, it helps us manipulate the world but does not show us how to manipulate it correctly.

I don't need to, I just do....turn that into a lambda calculus statement, then into a probability.

It seems Nature's programming is still in charge of that body... Why do you do what you do?

Nature. Look at what nature does to man's creation...do you think what you create will avoid this? No.



[/color]

Inductive, deductive and abductive. Everything you push is belief. We do not know or not know when our deaths or the "end of it all" is, we know there is an end but nature observes all ends have a simultaneous beginning...

Call it belief. Call it milk&cookies. This is what we have in 2019 - this is what we use for thought. Do you have anything better to offer or are you just annoyed that we are STILL this stupid ?


Yes, kill it all.

Simple solution, people become of the aware of the people and environment around them and in front of them.

What does awareness have to do with traveling? I am aware of my environment and my society. I spend 95% of my time with them.
The other 5% - i still want to travel. I still prefer to get out of my comfort zone/echo chamber and experience different cultures.

And I prefer traveling with an airplane to traveling with a ship.

Because awareness is about experience and defining the unknown. Traveling to somewhere else does not change the fact one is stuck with oneself. People go back and forth, but rarely face themselves. Modern traveling is strictly a biproduct entertainment mindset.

taking the plane into account at a minimum of 3 times for work

Is that 3 times a week, 3 times a year or 3 times in a lifetime. Your sampling interval sure makes all the difference to your argument.

I fly 8-10 times a year just because I want to.


And why do you want to? This is not a question premised in skepticism (or even that you are right), rather a simple "why?".

That is my point, what type of quality pleasure do computers provide.

My computer automates all my monthly payments - so I don't have to. Saves me 2-3 hours a week.
My computer automates my grocery shopping - so I don't have to. Saves me 2-3 hours a week.
My computer keeps track of my investment portfolios. Alerts me when things change for the better OR for the worse.
My computer keeps track of my tenants' payments. Alerts me when they haven't paid me (so I don't have to).
My computer helps me model/track/predict my income, my expenditures. When I over-spend - I get an alert.
When my goals are at risk - I get an alert. All these things my computer does. I would have to do by hand.

But because the computer does them FOR me - I get to travel 8-10 times a year.

I have more time to enjoy life AND I live longer than the ancient greeks!

Yes, at the cost of others.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=pic ... ORM=HDRSC2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... d50af00317

Modern means cause not just a higher sense of income inequality, but a simultaneous inequality with the environment as well as serious mental health issues where one has to "get away" because of there environment.

Who cares about going or not going to china unless you are trying to leave permanently.

I care!

So this is all about you?

If it takes 100 days to move from A to B and there are only 365 days in a year. If I were to take 3.65 trips a year that is 100% of my TIME gone!
Do the math.

I travel 8-10 times a year! And that's just for leisure - not work.

False, understanding is limit.

No. Current understanding is current limit. Better understanding removes limits.

And the act of reflection, the base quality of metaphysics, is not what composes the human condition itself?

If it synthesises a human being that makes good decisions - so be it.
But ultimately - you end up with decision theory. The theory of choice.

Actually ending up with decision theory is a choice.

How is space a religious belief? The munchausseen trillema exists, it destroys all other logical systems...hence just build a logical system on it.

The Munchhausen Trillema only speaks of the problem of justification in epistemology. That is only 50% of the problem.
The other 50% is the problem of criterion. It goes roughly as follows: even IF justification was possible (lets assume that you have solved it) how much justification is sufficient?

Actually it deals with the nature of self-evidence, it is not limited to epistemology, justification or criterion. It is the foundation for the above axioms.

You would have to justify sufficiency, and you are left with "need" over "want". Take for example you travel all over the world, but your brother's live in poverty. They have needs. You do what you want. Have you ever given your favorite or only coat, or the little money you have left to someone who hasn't eaten or needs to stay warm? I have. Why? Need necessitates balance not any form of excess.

You are guilty of the same problems you claim to eliminate as you argue for inequality.

With providing a quality life where people are focused on who and what is in front of them and not running around chasing whatever is in the wind.

And yet you chase the Prime Triad when you have Lambda calculus.

What I am saying is that the triad observes that not all logical systems can be relegated to an AI, and still maintain not just a sense of completeness but inherent value as well. The prime triad shows Lambda calculus cannot be a self-sustained system as the only system that is self-sustained is space. The most you can do is stretch reality in one direction, with AI/Computing/Lambda, before it is pulled back to its starting point.

Lambda calculus cannot provide answers to the nature of reality, morality, quality, etc.

what can be more abstract than space?

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


I asked what can be more abstract than space...and you gave a link about space....

Actually it was a cause. The miner's were unemployed because of the machines, they lost work, moral went down. They even said this directly.

If the machines didn't arrive. The miners would still have depleted the resources of the mine in 50-100 years.
The economic slump would have eventually ensued.

So the answer is to deplete everything as quick as possible? So machines speed up the entropy you argue against?

That is the point, the market itself is eventually going to annihilate all or most of human involvement by reducing the average man into a pig in a trough.

Yes. That's what happens when you trade your time for monetary reward. So don't do that!
I don't get paid by the hour - I get paid by the value I create.

Value to whom? The rich? You admitted that you work just for all the luxuries of traveling etc...because that is what you "want". You are a hedonist.

Not that it ran out but the rate it ran out, as well as the human condition being annihilated...for what? A better cup of coffee we cannot enjoy because we are rushing to go to some meeting?

Then what is your argument exactly? The mine created jobs. Jobs resulted in economic prosperity. The mine had finite resources. When they run out - so does economic prosperity.

The mine will always run out, and be replace by another...the question is controlling the entropy. Modern technology (and I am not arguing against all technology, rather the way we use it) speeds up entropy.

You don't seem to be celebrating the economic prosperity of mining, but you are despairing the slump that followed the exhaustion of the finite resources?

If the mine enabled a quality of life spanning several generations, versus bringing in machines which eradicate the very same balance they intend to offer...how I am not arguing for a sense of balance through prosperity?



What do you think will happen to humanity when we exhaust the finite resource of "land"?
Or the finite resource of "food"?
Or the finite resource of "energy"?
Or the finite resource of "oxygen"?
Or the finite resource of "time"?

So speeding it up is the solution by creating technology meant to indulge our every whim at the expense of quality...is the solution? ROFL!!!!

[Eodnhoj7]

The summary of this, relative to Logick's position, is there there are certain rational truths which cannot be calculated but exist as the process of calculation itself. All computing is subject to higher laws of reason; thus computation alone is not a justifiably complete method for working within reality.

[Logik]

The summary of this, relative to Logick's position, is there there are certain rational truths which cannot be calculated but exist as the process of calculation itself. All computing is subject to higher laws of reason; thus computation alone is not a justifiably complete method for working within reality.

Those truths are called human values. They are intrinsic.

That is the "oracle" (you!) in the oracle machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

Is murder wrong?

That's a yes/no question that a human-oracle can answer but a computer can't.

If you don't know what you value - no system can help you

[Eodnhoj7]

The summary of this, relative to Logick's position, is there there are certain rational truths which cannot be calculated but exist as the process of calculation itself. All computing is subject to higher laws of reason; thus computation alone is not a justifiably complete method for working within reality.

Those truths are called human values. They are intrinsic.

That is the "oracle" (you!) in the oracle machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

Is murder wrong?

That's a yes/no question that a human-oracle can answer but a computer can't.

If you don't know what you value - no system can help you

Actually explain how human values are intrinsic, using lambda, considering your statement must be based on a logical refutation.

You value tool making, so I just turn you into a tool.

[Eodnhoj7]

The summary of this, relative to Logick's position, is there there are certain rational truths which cannot be calculated but exist as the process of calculation itself. All computing is subject to higher laws of reason; thus computation alone is not a justifiably complete method for working within reality.

Those truths are called human values. They are intrinsic.

That is the "oracle" (you!) in the oracle machine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

Is murder wrong?

That's a yes/no question that a human-oracle can answer but a computer can't.

If you don't know what you value - no system can help you

Actually explain how human values are intrinsic, using lambda, considering your statement must be based on a logical refutation.

You value tool making, so I just turn you into a tool.

[Logik]

Actually explain how human values are intrinsic, using lambda, considering your statement must be based on a logical refutation.

You value tool making, so I just turn you into a tool.

You are an idiot.

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

In complexity theory and computability theory, an oracle machine is an abstract machine used to study decision problems. It can be visualized as a Turing machine with a black box, called an oracle, which is able to solve certain decision problems in a single operation. The problem can be of any complexity class. Even undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, can be used.

The Oracle is literally an abstract thinking tool. To help you navigate around those yes/no questions which science can't actually answer!

Do you feel happy when you drink coffee?

Science can't answer this. Oracle can.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually explain how human values are intrinsic, using lambda, considering your statement must be based on a logical refutation.

You value tool making, so I just turn you into a tool.

You are an idiot.

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

In complexity theory and computability theory, an oracle machine is an abstract machine used to study decision problems. It can be visualized as a Turing machine with a black box, called an oracle, which is able to solve certain decision problems in a single operation. The problem can be of any complexity class. Even undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, can be used.

The Oracle is literally an abstract thinking tool. To help you navigate around those yes/no questions which science can't actually answer!

Do you feel happy when you drink coffee?

Science can't answer this. Oracle can.

Actually the oracle cannot tell me if I am happy if I drink a cup of coffee, when the variable used to measure happiness are programmed into the computer and chosen from an infinite number of variables.

Please...your fascination with AI is just looping itself...on and on...but don't worry "philosophy" observes that as part of the nature of being. There is nothing you are doing new that has not existed in some variation elsewhere.

[Logik]

Actually explain how human values are intrinsic, using lambda, considering your statement must be based on a logical refutation.

You value tool making, so I just turn you into a tool.

You are an idiot.

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

In complexity theory and computability theory, an oracle machine is an abstract machine used to study decision problems. It can be visualized as a Turing machine with a black box, called an oracle, which is able to solve certain decision problems in a single operation. The problem can be of any complexity class. Even undecidable problems, such as the halting problem, can be used.

The Oracle is literally an abstract thinking tool. To help you navigate around those yes/no questions which science can't actually answer!

Do you feel happy when you drink coffee?

Science can't answer this. Oracle can.

Actually the oracle cannot tell me if I am happy if I drink a cup of coffee, when the variable used to measure happiness are programmed into the computer and chosen from an infinite number of variables.

Please...your fascination with AI is just looping itself...on and on...but don't worry "philosophy" observes that as part of the nature of being. There is nothing you are doing new that has not existed in some variation elsewhere.

Clearly abstractions go over your head.

YOU are the oracle. Not AI.

[Eodnhoj7]

You are an idiot.

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


The Oracle is literally an abstract thinking tool. To help you navigate around those yes/no questions which science can't actually answer!

Do you feel happy when you drink coffee?

Science can't answer this. Oracle can.

Actually the oracle cannot tell me if I am happy if I drink a cup of coffee, when the variable used to measure happiness are programmed into the computer and chosen from an infinite number of variables.

Please...your fascination with AI is just looping itself...on and on...but don't worry "philosophy" observes that as part of the nature of being. There is nothing you are doing new that has not existed in some variation elsewhere.

Clearly abstractions go over your head.

YOU are the oracle. Not AI.

But man is not a machine...clearly abstractions go over your head.

[Logik]

But man is not a machine...clearly abstractions go over your head.

In some ways we are the same as machines. In some ways we are different.

After all - we build machines to resemble our own image...

[Eodnhoj7]

But man is not a machine...clearly abstractions go over your head.

In some ways we are the same as machines. In some ways we are different.

After all - we build machines to resemble our own image...

So the oracle machine alleghory does not work as this itself is just an approximation.

Tell me how we are different from machines, without using philosophy. As a matter of fact use lambda calculus.


You are timeseeker aren't you?