Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
To me, you are placing the MEANING of consistency as OWNED by humanity rather than physics. Physics is of those worlds that have 'consistent' laws of which we are SUBJECT to follow.
Humanity is an abstraction. Humans are concrete entities. Some humans own the meaning of identity as you do Other humans (who call themselves "physicists") own the meaning that I do.
You are playing the same, stupid game as every theist in history. My God (axiom) is better than your God (axiom).
This disagreement is not resolvable philosophically, because axioms are always contingent upon pragmatic human choice.
If you don't back down and tolerate world-views alternative to the status quo - there will be violence.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
You also keep thinking that a human's capacity to
undefine what will be CALLED 'consistent or not, or choose to use some made word for the meaning, implies that the meaning itself doesn't exist to OUR shared world of reasoning.
It exists to YOUR shared world of reasoning - within YOUR echo-chamber.
it doesn't exist to MY shared world of reasoning - within MY echo-chamber.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
Physical laws ARE due to 'abstract' realties and is just the PERFECT MODEL of reality, but a 'model' nontheless.
Model indeed! Sounds like you don't understand the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
"Logic" refers to manipulating symbols but do NOT refer to the symbols being used (necessarily) but to what one can variably replace them with IN MEANING.
Logic also doesn't refer to WHAT symbols symbolise, nor does it refer to HOW symbols should be manipulated.
You are confusing logical and nomological necessity!
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
And you are 'reifying' the abstraction of NATURE as due to humans in an anthropomorphic interpretation that ALL 'logic' is just some featureless game to which we'd have to include chaotic behavior, like a child scribbling on paper.
That is precisely what it is! Logic is instrumental to humans.
It doesn't say fuckall about reality. It's just a self-imposed game of rule-following, where we are the ones interpreting the rules.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
"Logic" (intentional) is the particular models about reality to which we substitute symbols to reference things, use the system to draw conclusions, and then replace the symbols in those conclusions to be about the world.
There you go! Making the error I warned you about
Confusing the world of logic with the real world.
You mind is trapped in a cage of your own making.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
The minimal 'logic' has to be about some intent to symbolize reality in a ONE-TO-ONE correspondence of which the Law of Identity is a minimal rule in ANY system that says
Not SOME intent. ANY intent. My one-to-one correspondence needs not be your ONE-TO-ONE correspondence.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
, WE AGREE TO THESE RULES. That 'agreement' of asserting IDENTITY is AT LEAST to say you have SOME RULE or even if you assumed it to BE just a 'game', it would have no referent.
I didn't agree to shit! The rules were here when I arrived.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
The identity relation here is like assigning the memory space NAMED, "X", to contain "!X" in its memory as data
It's not an assignment, idiot. It's an assertion
X == X is ASSERTED as being false. That's called a decision.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
You are interpreting identity as an assignment to some variable content.
Leave me out of this. Talk about yourself. Tell me how YOU would falsify the identity axiom for yourself.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
IF you are referring to say, an actual hardware example
I am not referring to any hardware examples. A symbolic model of computation has infinite physical forms - you can build a computer purely out of children's toys. you can build a computer with water, you can build a computer with chemical reactions.
All of this is implementation detail - I am talking about design.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
, you can treat a flip-flop memory gate as ACTING like this. when electricity is limited IN TIME to flow through some circuit AND it gets fed back to itself as an input, Input-y as initially zero CAN output an Output-Y that feeds back to ALTER the function of the circuit. In this way, you may think this is a system DEFINED inconsistently, right? The reality tells us that given this IS a contradiction, it is not necessarily paradoxical because TIME itself resolves this in a way that permits this to be non-contradictory: Input-y(t=0) differs from Input-y(t=1). The whole label including its content are themselves distinct variables, "Input-y(t=0)" != "Input-y(t=1)" even while the partial label, "Input-y" they share is fixed.
Dumb electrical engineer.
Go ahead and make your analogy about a
Turing tumble.
It's still a computer, just not made of electric circuits.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
PROVE that you understand me correctly before you impose your internal impression of what you believe I mean maps to your meaning. Unfortunately, you'd be just PROVING that the 'law of identity' applies because then we'd have ...
That's a stupid request. The notion of "PROOF" is meaningless outside of symbolic logic. HOW would I prove to you that I understand you? What could I possibly say to you to convince you that you are wrong? Absolutely nothing!
That's why I insist that you prove yourself wrong.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
The value
in each of these named variables as labels have to be what is called, 'identical', not the labels of the variable. But when we do, we'd state the labels as 'identical' when we have
But it's precisely the values which are NOT identical, even though the labels are.
NOW is always labeled as NOW.
The value of NOW is not the same as the value of NOW.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
You're best 'proof' [to convince me sufficiently] would simply be to disagree with me perpetually until the end of infinite time. As you do this well here in finite means, there is likely no way...and that is why the law of Identity is itself a perpetual law BY MEANING!
This is precisely the reason I refuse to engage in philosophical debate.
Arguing is about defending your position - becoming further and further entrenched in your religion.
Science is about counter-examples. If that's not sufficient for you, then you have to tell me what is.
What experiment would you perform, what observation about reality would convince you of the error in your semantics?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
"Turing completeness" is NOT relevent and actually undoes what you appear to be asserting and favors my position
How is it not relevant when I have shown you a Turing machine which ASSERTS A = A as being false??!?!?!
Do you even give a shit about empirical evidence?
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
I stick with using "universal machine" given this definition is very specific to Turings literal expression in his paper on that. I have it, read it many times, compared it to other versions or expressions and it reduces in meaning you are implying as simply "universally complete", which happens to mean that those "universal laws" of logic necesarily apply or they cannot be proven 'complete'.
Good for you! So when you read Turing's paper did you also read that the universality of Turing machines is only about transformations from Nat -> Nat.
So are you then aware, that at higher types (such as the ones I am designing) your understanding of Turing's paper doesn't matter.
http://math.andrej.com/2006/03/27/somet ... ontinuous/
The lesson is for those “experts” who “know” that all reasonable models of computation are equivalent to Turing machines. This is true if one looks just at functions from N to N. However, at higher types, such as the type of our function m, questions of representation become important, and it does matter which model of computation is used.
So, I am in fact referring to a notion of computation that's not constrained to the specific model of Turing machines. Because you do know that there are other models, right?
P.S make sure you understand the implications of the Löwenheim–Skolem theorem.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
I have advanced computer logic under my belt.
I have practical experience under mine.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
Dito. But unlike you, I actually think you have a likely understanding under the surface but misappropriate the meaning of those universal laws with a bias that is unwarranted.
In a society that's dominated by people who think like me I could say the exact same thing about you!
Universal laws.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
Although others HAVE argued this within their own proposed alternatives, ...like how some who dismiss traditional logic as FALSE rather than INCOMPLETE as they attempt to upsell their presumed superior idea as a complete replacement that undoes the old.
There's nothing to be argued about. There's a principle in Mathematics:
no self-defeating objects.
This principle is a self-imposed
RESTRICTION on symbolic logic. Without this restriction the language is "too powerful".
Which is a stupid, stupid principle to embrace for people who WANT powerful languages.
I WANT a language that can make A become not-A. I WANT a language that can mutate the state of the world, not merely describe it.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
I am hoping that you eat these words after reading the above. But I'm certain you'll come back with something else. If you presume me 'incorrect' (ie, 'false' by our some universal meaning), you have yet to prove you understand the meaning of the universal
laws that reference 'identity' and 'contradiction'.
They aren't universal laws, you moron. You can VIOLATE them AT WILL.
They are just social norms.
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Jan 26, 2021 8:56 am
They are the essential mechanisms of nature......
The "universal" laws of thought are an "essential mechanism of nature"?
Fuck. You are dumb.