Foundations of Synthesis As Absolute Truth and Relativistic Truth

[Logik]

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

It is not even an approximation. It's an abstract tool. It's used for thought experiments.

It used where you have some yes/no question that is REALLY difficult to answer for a computer.

We simply use it to say things like "well, we don't have any scientific way to determine the answer to this yes/no question - but lets pretend that we do".

Example: "Is murder wrong?". There is literally NO computer program I can write to answer this from first principles.

But ask a human... and you will get the answer immediately.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

It is not even an approximation. It's an abstract tool. It's used for thought experiments.

Abstractions are approximations of empirical phenomenon.

It used where you have some yes/no question that is REALLY difficult to answer for a computer.


We simply use it to say things like "well, we don't have any scientific way to determine the answer to this yes/no question - but lets pretend that we do".

Example: "Is murder wrong?". There is literally NO computer program I can write to answer this from first principles.

But ask a human... and you will get the answer immediately.

Actually you won't considering what constitutes murder varies by definiton.

[Logik]

Actually you won't considering what constitutes murder varies by definiton.

That the definition of murder varies - it does. From country to country it's defined differently.

That has nothing to do with the wrongness of murder.

In every country where murder is defined (and however it is defined) murder is wrong.

And you can prove me wrong by giving me an example of a country in which a randomly sampled person from the population would answer the "Is murder wrong?" question with a "No".

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually you won't considering what constitutes murder varies by definiton.

That the definition of murder varies - it does. From country to country it's defined differently.

That has nothing to do with the wrongness of murder.

Actually it does, when the context changes. New definitions of murder can be synthesized given certain variables. Lambda calculus can be used as a paint brush to redefined murder and thus justify it since ethics are a creation of man.

In every country where murder is defined (and however it is defined) murder is wrong.

And you can prove me wrong by giving me an example of a country in which a randomly sampled person from the population would answer the "Is murder wrong?" question with a "No".

Actually if they define murder as different from you, anyone can justify it. You cannot encapsulate an ethical system strictly through a state defined ethics without contradicting your libertine values.

As usual...you are just making up stuff.

[Logik]

Actually you won't considering what constitutes murder varies by definiton.

That the definition of murder varies - it does. From country to country it's defined differently.

That has nothing to do with the wrongness of murder.

Actually it does, when the context changes. New definitions of murder can be synthesized given certain variables. Lambda calculus can be used as a paint brush to redefined murder and thus justify it since ethics are a creation of man.

In every country where murder is defined (and however it is defined) murder is wrong.

And you can prove me wrong by giving me an example of a country in which a randomly sampled person from the population would answer the "Is murder wrong?" question with a "No".

Actually if they define murder as different from you, anyone can justify it. You cannot encapsulate an ethical system strictly through a state defined ethics without contradicting your libertine values.

As usual...you are just making up stuff.

Which is why all our court systems have judges who don't entertain sophistry.

If we didn't I imagine the "I do not define murder like you do" defense would be rather popular.

A court of law is not the place to play silly philosophical re-interpretation games.

[Eodnhoj7]

That the definition of murder varies - it does. From country to country it's defined differently.

That has nothing to do with the wrongness of murder.

Actually it does, when the context changes. New definitions of murder can be synthesized given certain variables. Lambda calculus can be used as a paint brush to redefined murder and thus justify it since ethics are a creation of man.

In every country where murder is defined (and however it is defined) murder is wrong.

And you can prove me wrong by giving me an example of a country in which a randomly sampled person from the population would answer the "Is murder wrong?" question with a "No".

Actually if they define murder as different from you, anyone can justify it. You cannot encapsulate an ethical system strictly through a state defined ethics without contradicting your libertine values.

As usual...you are just making up stuff.

Which is why all our court systems have judges.

So that philosophers can't use the "can you define murder for me?" defense.

And many judges have many different contexts through which they judge as murder is subject to context; thus each judged case sets a standard for what murder is and is not relative to context.

Judges make up the definition.

[Logik]

Which is why all our court systems have judges.

So that philosophers can't use the "can you define murder for me?" defense.

And many judges have many different contexts through which they judge as murder is subject to context; thus each judged case sets a standard for what murder is and is not relative to context.

Judges make up the definition.

Which is why murder isn't about the definition.

The definition is an attempt to let a more "fair" system deal with you if you were to be accused of murdering somebody.

Of course - we don't have to. Mob justice is another way to "define murder".

[Eodnhoj7]

Which is why all our court systems have judges.

So that philosophers can't use the "can you define murder for me?" defense.

And many judges have many different contexts through which they judge as murder is subject to context; thus each judged case sets a standard for what murder is and is not relative to context.

Judges make up the definition.

Which is why murder isn't about the definition.

The definition is an attempt to let a more "fair" system deal with you if you were to be accused of murdering somebody.

Of course - we don't have to. Mob justice is another way to "define murder".

Actually judges defined and make up the definition of murder. Mob's are judges.

This is all logical, you can use your lambda calculus (strict math/logic) to create new definitions of murder. Just quantify it.

[Logik]

This is all logical, you can use your lambda calculus (strict math/logic) to create new definitions of murder. Just quantify it.

73.

You are acting like you've never heard of the symbol-grounding problem before.

[Eodnhoj7]

This is all logical, you can use your lambda calculus (strict math/logic) to create new definitions of murder. Just quantify it.

73.

You are acting like you've never heard of the symbol-grounding problem before.

I am fullying aware of it, and the trillema observes the symbol grounding problem rooted in spatial axioms under the basic point, line and circle...something lambda exists through but does not observe hence is incomplete by its symbolism alone.

[Logik]

This is all logical, you can use your lambda calculus (strict math/logic) to create new definitions of murder. Just quantify it.

73.

You are acting like you've never heard of the symbol-grounding problem before.

I am fullying aware of it, and the trillema observes the symbol grounding problem rooted in spatial axioms under the basic point, line and circle...


something lambda exists through but does not observe hence is incomplete by its symbolism alone.

The point line and circle are squiggles on a piece of paper.

Lambda calculus flies airplanes.

[Eodnhoj7]

73.

You are acting like you've never heard of the symbol-grounding problem before.

I am fullying aware of it, and the trillema observes the symbol grounding problem rooted in spatial axioms under the basic point, line and circle...


something lambda exists through but does not observe hence is incomplete by its symbolism alone.

The point line and circle are squiggles on a piece of paper.

Lambda calculus flies airplanes.

False, what flies airplanes are understanding the cycles which compose the systems of the airplanes, the fuel cycle length, cash flow cycles for cost analysis, cycles which observe the part replacement rate, cycles of passengers, etc.

Cycles...get over it...you are not going anywhere but circles.

[Logik]

False, what flies airplanes are understanding the cycles which compose the systems of the airplanes, the fuel cycle length, cash flow cycles for cost analysis, cycles which observe the part replacement rate, cycles of passengers, etc.

Cycles...get over it...you are not going anywhere but circles.

Idiot!

Here is the software which flew the Apollo 11 to the FUCKING MOON. https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11

Do that with your circle-dot

[Eodnhoj7]

False, what flies airplanes are understanding the cycles which compose the systems of the airplanes, the fuel cycle length, cash flow cycles for cost analysis, cycles which observe the part replacement rate, cycles of passengers, etc.

Cycles...get over it...you are not going anywhere but circles.

Idiot!

Here is the software which flew the Apollo 11 to the FUCKING MOON. https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11

Do that with your circle-dot

That is alot of work to send something from Earth back to Earth....more circles....

In all the schematics, for the engines/resource consumption/etc....I would be interested to see how many times the words "cycle", "alternator/alternation", etc. pop up.

I mean look at you, you and all your "wisdom", you keep cycling through "programming" as the pinpoint of your argument in progressive variations of the same thing...it is almost like you are "stuck" going in some perpetual loop.

[Logik]

I mean look at you, you and all your "wisdom", you keep cycling through "programming" as the pinpoint of your argument in progressive variations of the same thing...it is almost like you are "stuck" going in some perpetual loop.

It's not a loop. It's recursion.

Subtle difference that absconds you.

A loop ends up at the same space coordinate.
A recursion can never end up at the same spacetime coordinate.