In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:26 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:23 am
This is covered in the laws.
Laws ? What's a 'law'? :P

The structure underneath the language matters more than the words themselves.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:27 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:23 am
This is covered in the laws.
Laws ? What's a 'law'? :P
An axiom as a point of origin, definition and maintainer of further axioms.

Addressed in law.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:28 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:26 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:23 am
This is covered in the laws.
Laws ? What's a 'law'? :P

The structure underneath the language matters more than the words themselves.
Addressed in laws:

Continuum progressing past these laws , which in itself is an extension of these laws.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:27 am
An axiom as a point of origin, definition and maintainer of further axioms.

Addressed in law.
And why should I accept such an axiom? It seems like just another invented authority.

To me "laws" prevent me from doing things. What is it that your "law" prevents me from doing?

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:31 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:28 am
Continuum progressing past these laws ,
You really are re-inventing computation :)

Continumm progressing == time-progression. You are describing inductive reasoning.

What you are observing is how algorithms/computation works (obviously this is true in my framework), but the point I am making is that you are busy formalising what is already formal.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:28 am
which in itself is an extension of these laws.
Strange loops/recursion. Computation :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)

ALL decomposes into RE and co-RE. Both of which deal with recursion.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:34 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:29 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:27 am
An axiom as a point of origin, definition and maintainer of further axioms.

Addressed in law.
And why should I accept such an axiom? It seems like just another invented authority.

To me "laws" prevent me from doing things. What is it that your "law" prevents me from doing?
All axioms as laws existing through further axioms as laws are Continuuims, they don't prevent anything.

These laws do not have to be accepted as they are void in themselves, and exist by progressing to further laws. This inherent within them as laws; hence they always exist through further laws where both these laws and the progressive laws are extensions of eachother.

Addressed already in laws.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:28 am
Continuum progressing past these laws ,
You really are re-inventing computation :)

Continumm progressing == time-progression. You are describing inductive reasoning.

What you are observing is how algorithms/computation works (obviously this is true in my framework), but the point I am making is that you are busy formalising what is already formal.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:28 am
which in itself is an extension of these laws.
Strange loops/recursion. Computation :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALL_(complexity)

ALL decomposes into RE and co-RE. Both of which deal with recursion.
No, the laws you claim are formalized exist through these laws, no formalism in computation can occur as all computation as a system of axioms must progress past computation as an axiom.

Computation on its own terms is a void axiom.

However since computation can have a variety of definitions as void on its own terms, it is connected to all axioms and is maintained for what it is as an axiom.

Addressed in laws.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:47 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
No, the laws you claim are formalized exist through these laws, no formalism in computation can occur as all computation as a system of axioms must progress past computation as an axiom.

Computation on its own terms is a void axiom.
it's not an axiom. It is an activity. What I claim is formalised is the process. The progression through time. Algorithms.

They are not laws (prescriptions). They are descriptions.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
However since computation can have a variety of definitions as void on its own terms, it is connected to all axioms and is maintained for what it is as an axiom.

Addressed in laws.
It needs not be defined. Definitions concern themselves with language. One can progress (act? directed movement?) without comprehension of the axioms OR language.

I am hungry -> i get food. Progression.

And this works in the metaphysical realm too.

What is there?
And what is it like?

1. What is there? The Universe (ALL - complexity class)
2. What is it like? By DOING scientific reduction we break down ALL (The Universe) into its axioms: quarks, atoms and leptons.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:47 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
No, the laws you claim are formalized exist through these laws, no formalism in computation can occur as all computation as a system of axioms must progress past computation as an axiom.

Computation on its own terms is a void axiom.
it's not an axiom. It is an activity. What I claim is formalised is the process. The progression through time. Algorithms.

They are not laws. They are descriptions.

The above statement are axioms defined through further axioms. All activity is an axiom which progresses to further axioms seperate from activity.

A formalized process, must progress to another formalized process.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
However since computation can have a variety of definitions as void on its own terms, it is connected to all axioms and is maintained for what it is as an axiom.

Addressed in laws.
It needs not be defined. Definitions concern themselves with language. One can progress (act? directed movement?) without comprehension of the axioms OR language.

All language is an axiom which must progress to another axiom which is eparate from language. This axiom separate from language is an axiom and hence defined. Definition occurs through linear progression as seperation and connection, hence all being axioms may be defined under the axiom of language as a language itself but not limited to language.




I am hungry -> i get food. Progression.

And this works in the metaphysical realm too.

What is there?
And what is it like?

1. What is there? The Universe (ALL - complexity class)
2. What is it like? By DOING scientific reduction we break down ALL (The Universe) into its axioms: quarks, atoms and leptons.

All C ontinuums as axioms eventually cycle back to there origins and are maintained as non progressive constants where they exist for what they are as connected to all axioms which cycle as a point of origin.


All addressed in laws.

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
All activity is an axiom which progresses to further axioms seperate from activity.
All activity simply is. Change.

To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
A formalized process, must progress to another formalized process.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it/communicate it.

Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before we progressed to "eating".

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All language is an axiom which must progress to another axiom which is eparate from language.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
This axiom separate from language is an axiom and hence defined.
All definitions are linguistic.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
Definition occurs through linear progression as seperation and connection, hence all being axioms may be defined under the axiom of language as a language itself but not limited to language.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it :)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All addressed in laws.
Laws are prescriptive. What you are busy DOING is describing 'laws'.

You are inventing an authority for yourself. Which is perfectly fine - if it works ;)

Just don't forget to change your 'laws' if you ever falsify/contradict them... else you risk dogma.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:13 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
All activity is an axiom which progresses to further axioms seperate from activity.
All activity simply is. Change.

To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.

All change as a continuum is no change it is infinite, hence change is void as an axiom.

These laws progress past language as language is an axiom, while connected to them as an axiom.

In laws already.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
A formalized process, must progress to another formalized process.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it.

Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before you progressed to "eating".

All progression as not formalized is a a void axiom on its own terms. All formalities as axioms must progress past formality as an axiom.

Understanding as an axiom is void on its own terms.


Addressed in above laws.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All language is an axiom which must progress to another axiom which is eparate from language.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.

The "axiom" as an axiom is void and must progress resulting in an axiom.

Addressed in laws.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
This axiom separate from language is an axiom and hence defined.
All definitions are linguistic.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
Definition occurs through linear progression as seperation and connection, hence all being axioms may be defined under the axiom of language as a language itself but not limited to language.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it :)

description as an axiom is connected to observation as an axiom.

Addressed in Laws.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All addressed in laws.
Laws are prescriptive. You are busy describing.

"Laws are prescriptive" as an axiom progresses past this axiom to further axioms. Description cancels itself out into a point of origin.

Addressed in above laws.

:)

TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:14 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:13 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
All activity is an axiom which progresses to further axioms seperate from activity.
All activity simply is. Change.

To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.

All change as a continuum is no change it is infinite, hence change is void as an axiom.

These laws progress past language as language is an axiom, while connected to them as an axiom.

In laws already.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
A formalized process, must progress to another formalized process.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it.

Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before you progressed to "eating".

All progression as not formalized is a a void axiom on its own terms. All formalities as axioms must progress past formality as an axiom.

Understanding as an axiom is void on its own terms.


Addressed in above laws.



Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All language is an axiom which must progress to another axiom which is eparate from language.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.

The "axiom" as an axiom is void and must progress resulting in an axiom.

Addressed in laws.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
This axiom separate from language is an axiom and hence defined.
All definitions are linguistic.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
Definition occurs through linear progression as seperation and connection, hence all being axioms may be defined under the axiom of language as a language itself but not limited to language.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it :)

description as an axiom is connected to observation as an axiom.

Addressed in Laws.


Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All addressed in laws.
Laws are prescriptive. You are busy describing.

"Laws are prescriptive" as an axiom progresses past this axiom to further axioms. Description cancels itself out into a point of origin.

Addressed in above laws.

:)
Good. Depart the land of metaphysics. There is nothing more for you there.

Just don't forget to change your 'laws' if you ever falsify/contradict them... else you risk dogma.

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:16 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
All activity is an axiom which progresses to further axioms seperate from activity.
All activity simply is. Change.

To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:57 am
A formalized process, must progress to another formalized process.
Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it/communicate it.

Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before we progressed to "eating".

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All language is an axiom which must progress to another axiom which is eparate from language.
I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
This axiom separate from language is an axiom and hence defined.
All definitions are linguistic.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
Definition occurs through linear progression as seperation and connection, hence all being axioms may be defined under the axiom of language as a language itself but not limited to language.
You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it :)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 6:39 am
All addressed in laws.
Laws are prescriptive. What you are busy DOING is describing 'laws'.

You are inventing an authority for yourself. Which is perfectly fine - if it works ;)

Authority is void on its own terms as an axiom.

Law 1.



Just don't forget to change your 'laws' if you ever falsify/contradict them... else you risk dogma.

These laws must progress to further laws, through which these laws exist through. This is law.


Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:18 am

TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:14 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:13 am
TimeSeeker wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:04 am

All activity simply is. Change.

To speak of any axioms is to speak of language. To use language in this way is to describe activity.

All change as a continuum is no change it is infinite, hence change is void as an axiom.

These laws progress past language as language is an axiom, while connected to them as an axiom.

In laws already.




Yes, but the process need not be formalized to progress. The formalism is for the benefit of the humans. So that we can study it/understand it.

Nobody ever formalised "hunger" before you progressed to "eating".

All progression as not formalized is a a void axiom on its own terms. All formalities as axioms must progress past formality as an axiom.

Understanding as an axiom is void on its own terms.


Addressed in above laws.





I think the term "axiom" is only valid in linguistics/logic.

The "axiom" as an axiom is void and must progress resulting in an axiom.

Addressed in laws.




All definitions are linguistic.


You are describing the progression - which needs not be described. Just observe it :)

description as an axiom is connected to observation as an axiom.

Addressed in Laws.




Laws are prescriptive. You are busy describing.

"Laws are prescriptive" as an axiom progresses past this axiom to further axioms. Description cancels itself out into a point of origin.

Addressed in above laws.

:)
Good. Depart the land of metaphysics. There is nothing more for you there.

Metaphysics as an axiom is connected to all other axioms, all axioms are an extension of metaphysics.

Metaphysics as an axiom must progress.



Just don't forget to change your 'laws' if you ever falsify/contradict them... else you risk dogma.


TimeSeeker
Posts: 2866
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:42 am

Re: In Honor Of Philosophy Day I Present What Just Killed all Their Hard Work.

Post by TimeSeeker » Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:16 am
These laws must progress to further laws, through which these laws exist through. This is law.
Not necessarily. You can abandon a 'law' (having found it contradictory) while searching for a new one.

Until (and if you ever) find a viable replacement it does not progress to further laws.

The axiom in your system (from where I am observing) is progression. Arrow of time.

Falsification of your 'laws' would entail reversal of time. Which physics hasn't proven as "impossible" yet.
For all we know - we are experiencing time backwards. So "progression" is actually regression.
Last edited by TimeSeeker on Sun Nov 18, 2018 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests