Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 9:20 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:58 am
1. Evidence is interpretations of relations.
No, it isn't. Interpretation itself depends on relations.
You are completely oblivious to the fact that saying "evidence is interpretation of relations" is the relation of "evidence" to the "interpretation of relations"
What is "is"? It's the equality relation.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 24, 2021 12:58 am
2. If one is absent of a precise definition one is absent of a complete definition thus there is an absence of definition. Precision as not being precisely definable necessitates an absence of definition thus precision is not definable in the strictest sense of the word given it cannot be totally explained.
All words are like that. What do you mean by "complete", "definition", "totally" and "explained"?
Your ramblings are incoherent as usual.
1. The relation of "evidence" to "the interpretation of relations" is in itself a meta "interpretation of interpretation" or "evidence of evidence" (however you choose to observe it). As such all truth exists through recursion, but this not take away from the fact that "evidence" equates to "interpretation".
All phenomenon as composed of parts are composed of relations and exist as relations. These phenomenon, as composed of relations, are in themselves parts to further phenomena thus exist as relations. Evidence is the observations of said relations and the relations which compose said relations thus is the interpretation of relations within relations. This interpretation is an observation of said relations where the subject and object (ie relations) are unified. Evidence is interpretation, interpretation is the absence of dichotomy between subject and object.
2. Not all words but rather all symbols are like that thus necessitating a paradox in you trying to argue that programming is more precise than math given precision is not fully known. You hinge your argument off a key word which lends itself to ambiguity and even admit that this ambiguity is present given "precision" cannot be "precisely" defined. Your argument fails when the axiom (ie "precision") is put into question. Dually rather than defining precision you give an example of what "feels" like precision to you when this feeling, as argued above, can be dually inverted in observing the opposite.
Going to the example of a tea cup, breaking the single solitary teacup into multiple teacups through the use of defining the teacup further only causes the definition of tea cup to fragment into multiple parts thus negating the unity necessary for precision. To say "tea cup" is to present a unified precise definition of a phenomenon. To say "tea cup with x characteristics" is to seperate the one tea cup into many thus dividing the definition of what a teacup really is or is not.
2a. "Completeness" is the absence of any further definition needed. Completeness is the fullness of definition where something cannot be defined any further.
2b. "Definition" is the relation of parts and how they interacted.
2c. "Totally" is the absence of any further phenomenon where all that can be observed is observed.
2d. "Explained" is the attachment of symbols to a definition in order to express it in a new form. The relations of parts and there interaction are observed and symbols are attached to these phenomenon so that the relations can be seen from a different angle in one respect while allowing for the shared communication of what is observed in a different respect.
3. "Your ramblings are incoherent as usual" is again just a projection on your part...half of what you say only makes sense to you. To say "precision" cannot be precisely defined is to land in a paradox given one must first know what precision is in order to say something is not precise. To say "precision" cannot be precisely defined necessitates "precision" as both known and unknown in one respect. In a further respect it is self negating given precision not being precisely defined leaves "precision" as open ended to ambiguity that further lends itself to equivocation.
You are full of contradictions as usual. To say precision cannot be precisely defined is to precisely define precision but dually stating that precision is ambiguous. "Precision" is thus dualistically divided into both being precisely defined and not precisely defined. Your core argument stems from the problem of this single axiom.