Are Numbers Manmade?

[Eodnhoj7]

No, philosophy and language just readapt under a new formalism. The tautological nature of phenomena act as a new formal system where phenomena take on the form of strings and loops.

Is the new system descriptive or imperative?

Programming languages are imperative. There's no tautologies in imperative logic - there are just expressions.

Words and effects.

A tautology is a description, one expression inverting into another is always tautological.

For example:

"The cat ran after the dog" shows the cat being expressed though differnet modes (ie "running", the "dog" as a new position, etc.).

Are arithmetic functions man made if we reason through these same processes?

Are ANY functions man-made if we reason through the same process?

Pointless question. We think in terms of functions. And functions of functions. And functions of functions of functions.

Composability.

If we think "through" functions then any function we make is through another function thus how we create is determined by laws beyond our reasoning that our reason exists through.



There is always a black box somewhere.

Blackbox3D-obs.png

The black box is a point of inversion from one assertion to another assertion. While the black box may be designed on how something is inverted we do not create the actuality of inversion itself. It is a mode of reasoning we exist through.

[Skepdick]

What you are really saying is, “This is a thing that most everybody calls an apple. You may call it whatever you want. If you want most everybody to understand you, then in that case you must call it an apple.”

Well, yes - that is obvious, but that is the trivial point. The more important point is this:

When I walk up to you and say "This is an apple" (but I am holding an orange in my hand), what I am telling you is that if you want me to understand you then you should probably call the orange an apple when talking to me.

Propositions are exactly that. I am PROPOSING that we use my language when speaking about this thing.

In turn you could propose: Errr, most people call this an orange.
And I could accept your proposition: Oh! My bad - lets call it an orange then. (I am happy to calibrate my language to your language)
Or i could reject your proposition: Naaah, lets stick to calling it an apple. (I am not happy to calibrate my language to your language)

That's what all arguments boil down to: Whose words are we using?

Usually, you end up using the words of the person who isn't comfortable (or willing) to give up their language. The most intolerant wins...

[commonsense]

That's what all arguments boil down to: Whose words are we using?

Usually, you end up using the words of the person who isn't comfortable (or willing) to give up their language. The most intolerant wins...

Truer words never spoken.

[Skepdick]

A tautology is a description, one expression inverting into another is always tautological.

Pay attention. Imperative logic is NOT descriptive. It's prescriptive.

To speak of "tautology" in imperative logic is non-sensical. You are in the domain of deontology/ought. Not in the domain if description/is

"The cat ran after the dog" shows the cat being expressed though differnet modes (ie "running", the "dog" as a new position, etc.).

Q.E.D you are PRESCRIBING a linguistic description of the events that are unfolding.

If you filmed the events using a video camera the words "The cat ran after the dog" become unnecessary.
You play the video - I nod my head. We understand what happened. No "positions", "inversions", "loops", "running", "cats" or "dogs".

NO LANGUAGE.

The black box is a point of inversion from one assertion to another assertion. While the black box may be designed on how something is inverted we do not create the actuality of inversion itself. It is a mode of reasoning we exist through.

It's one and the same event. Points do not exist. We create them.

We interrupt the flow of information arriving through our senses to make the linguistic assertion "The cat ran after the dog".

The question is WHY did you have to assert/say that? Why did you put a point in the continuity?

[surreptitious57]

When I walk up to you and say This is an apple ( but I am holding an orange in my hand ) what I am telling you is that if you want me
to understand you then you should probably call the orange an apple when talking to me

I am PROPOSING that we use my language when speaking about this

In turn you could propose : most people call this an orange
And I could accept your proposition : lets call it an orange then ( I am happy to calibrate my language to your language )
Or I could reject your proposition : lets stick to calling it an apple ( I am not happy to calibrate my language to your language )

Thats what all arguments boil down to : Whose words are we using ?

Usually you end up using the words of the person who isnt comfortable ( or willing ) to give up their language

Your example is fallacious as no one of sound mind mistakes an orange for an apple
A more realistic example would therefore be better even if it is purely hypothetical

All arguments definitely do not boil down to whose words are being used but sometimes whose definitions [ these two are not the same ]
Also they can be about how strong the logical connections are between premises and conclusion - whether the argument is valid or sound

[Skepdick]

Your example is fallacious as no one of sound mind mistakes an orange for an apple

Nobody mistakes anything for anything. They call the thing by a different name.

A Spaniard mistakes an orange for a naranja
An Arab "mistakes" an orange for a البرتقالي
A Russian "mistakes" an orange for a апельсин
A Zulu "mistakes" an orange for a iwolintshi

A more realistic example would therefore be better even if it is purely hypothetical

It is a perfectly realistic example. You don't understand how language acquisition works.

You take language for granted.

All arguments definitely do not boil down to whose words are being used but sometimes whose definitions [ these two are not the same ]
Also they can be about how strong the logical connections are between premises and conclusion - whether the argument is valid or sound

OK, so tell me then. What is this?

iwolintshi, naranja, апельсин, البرتقالي or an orange?

What is your "sound, strong, logical argument" for it being ANY of the above?

orange.png (141.14 KiB) Viewed 2436 times

[surreptitious57]

I did not mean the same word or definition but in different languages
I meant different definitions for the same word in the same language

We can easily agree on different words having the same meaning in different languages
That is because there is a one to one correspondence as the meaning is always the same

We can not so easily [ sometimes not even at all ] agree on different definitions for the same word in the same language
Language is a human construct and is complicated and ambiguous because human beings are complicated and ambiguous

[Skepdick]

I did not mean the same word or definition but in different languages
I meant different definitions for the same word in the same language

You are pre-supposing a shared language. Why?

If I call that thing "orange" and you call that thing "apple" - it should be obvious to you that we are using different languages.

You should immediately focus your attention on language-calibration. Not on "whose definition is right"

We can easily agree on different words having the same meaning in different languages

Yes, we can. So why assume it upfront?

That is because there is a one to one correspondence as the meaning is always the same

That's not true. I call it "orange", you call it "apple" - there is a 2:1 correspondence.

We can not so easily [ sometimes not even at all ] agree on different definitions for the same word in the same language
Language is a human construct and is complicated and ambiguous because human beings are complicated and ambiguous

Sure, but if we both familiarize ourselves with Dialogical logic and choose to abandon classical/intuitionistic dick-swinging contest. We can reach consensus pretty rapidly.

Constructivism is meaning-making. We invent meaning - we shouldn't be too hung up on re-inventing it.

[surreptitious57]

I had never heard of dialogical logic before but if that is about creating more clarity in language then it is philosophically
similar to dialectic materialism and the Socratic method even though they are more about argument form than language

I do not think that meaning should be re invented before every attempt at understanding with pre existing meaning is truly exhausted
Language is in a constant state of evolution so change will come but only when necessary since change for the sake of it is superfluous

[commonsense]

I did not mean the same word or definition but in different languages
I meant different definitions for the same word in the same language

We can easily agree on different words having the same meaning in different languages
That is because there is a one to one correspondence as the meaning is always the same

We can not so easily [ sometimes not even at all ] agree on different definitions for the same word in the same language
Language is a human construct and is complicated and ambiguous because human beings are complicated and ambiguous.

Many English words have multiple and disparate meanings.

I tied my shoelaces. The game ended with the teams tied. The suspect was tied to the murder by his fingerprints.

At the end of the day I lie at home. At the end of the day I lie at home.

Et cetera.

[Eodnhoj7]

A tautology is a description, one expression inverting into another is always tautological.

Pay attention. Imperative logic is NOT descriptive. It's prescriptive.

To speak of "tautology" in imperative logic is non-sensical. You are in the domain of deontology/ought. Not in the domain if description/is

All assertions are descriptive.

"The cat ran after the dog" shows the cat being expressed though differnet modes (ie "running", the "dog" as a new position, etc.).

Q.E.D you are PRESCRIBING a linguistic description of the events that are unfolding.

If you filmed the events using a video camera the words "The cat ran after the dog" become unnecessary.
You play the video - I nod my head. We understand what happened. No "positions", "inversions", "loops", "running", "cats" or "dogs".

Each phenomenon of the film inverts to a new one. One position in time and space (the cat) inverts to a new position (the dog).



NO LANGUAGE.

The black box is a point of inversion from one assertion to another assertion. While the black box may be designed on how something is inverted we do not create the actuality of inversion itself. It is a mode of reasoning we exist through.

It's one and the same event. Points do not exist. We create them.

Actually we exist through them as all symbolism points to a new symbol.

We interrupt the flow of information arriving through our senses to make the linguistic assertion "The cat ran after the dog".

The question is WHY did you have to assert/say that? Why did you put a point in the continuity?

It is asserted as it is assumed. We assume phenomenon then assert them to further reassume them.

[commonsense]

The black box is a point of inversion from one assertion to another assertion. While the black box may be designed on how something is inverted we do not create the actuality of inversion itself. It is a mode of reasoning we exist through.

By actuality of inversion do you mean the same as actual inversion?

By through do you mean by means of or via?

[Eodnhoj7]

The black box is a point of inversion from one assertion to another assertion. While the black box may be designed on how something is inverted we do not create the actuality of inversion itself. It is a mode of reasoning we exist through.

By actuality of inversion do you mean the same as actual inversion?

Yes. One phenomenon inverts to many. One state changes into another.

By through do you mean by means of or via?

Yes.

[Skepdick]

All assertions are descriptive

Are they now? What is an assertion describing?

Each phenomenon of the film inverts to a new one. One position in time and space (the cat) inverts to a new position (the dog).

No. They are discrete, still frames, but when I play 30 of them per second it seems like a continuous series of events to you.

Actually we exist through them as all symbolism points to a new symbol.

Things existed long before symbols. Using symbols/abstraction is what makes us different to everything else that exists.

It is asserted as it is assumed. We assume phenomenon then assert them to further reassume them.

Yeah. No. I'll kick you in the balls - you tell me that's an "assumption" on the phenomenon of "pleasant experience.

[commonsense]

As long as you have a functioning memory, once you have assumed something it cannot be re-assumed.