Explaining Everything Explains Nothing

[Eodnhoj7]

"⊙"

Tell me how the axioms forming the above are not absolute.

Because I can turn it into dualism with one question.

is it true?

Actually the answer does not result in a dualism.

Yes.
Yes because of x.
Yes because of x and y.
....
No.
No because of/therefore x.
No because of/therefore x and y.
....
Both yes and no.
Both yes and no because/therefore x.
Both yes and no because/therefore x and y
....
Neither yes nor no.
Neither yes nor no because/therefore x.
Neither yes nor no because/therefore x and y.
.....
Yes it is both....
....
It is not both....
....
It is both and not both....
....
It is neither both or not both...
....
Yes it is neither....
....
It is not neither...
....

Etc... because I am bored.

[Logik]

Actually the answer does not result in a dualism.

So it results in ' I don't know'? Undecidability.

The same as all philosophical questions.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually the last is never fully observed, hence the future is never really controlable.

You only need to control micro-states, not macro-states.

This is the concept of power. The more you can control - the more powerful you are.

Actually what consistency do you propose? I seen your arguments, they are not consistent at all.

Of course! Godel told us that.

Any sufficiently powerful system cannot be both consistent AND complete.

I propose consistency of outcome.

Actually a macro state is another micro state. They are relativistic duals and both exist as one relative to position.

Actually if it is not complete it never really is consistent relative to time.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually the answer does not result in a dualism.

So it results in ' I don't know'?

Actually I showed you the results, quite more than a dualism.

[Logik]

Actually a macro state is another micro state.

I would agree with you, but to say this you have adopted a perspective of maximum precision.

And if I were to insist on fidelity (complete description of this micro state) your head will explode.

You don't have enough RAM to retain a microstate at high fidelity.

Actually if it is not complete it never really is consistent relative to time.

Now you understand the difficulty with objective morality.

A complete and consistent definition of that which is to be time-symmetrical.

Define human.

[Logik]

Actually I showed you the results, quite more than a dualism.

OK. Let me unpack.

Yes. You showed pluralism not dualism. But that converges towards infinitism.

Dualism is bad because it's ambiguous. Infinitism is worse because it's infinite meaning.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually a macro state is another micro state.

I would agree with you, but to say this you have adopted a perspective of maximum precision.

And if I were to insist on fidelity (complete description of this micro state) your head will explode.

You don't have enough RAM to retain a microstate at high fidelity.

Actually if it is not complete it never really is consistent relative to time.

Now you understand the difficulty with objective morality.

A complete and consistent definition of that which is to be time-symmetrical.

Define human.

Actually the reciprocal nature of the golden rule as being derived from a circularity mirroring both abstract geometry and natural cycles observes an objective morality.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually I showed you the results, quite more than a dualism.

OK. Let me unpack.

Yes. You showed pluralism not dualism. But that converges towards infinitism.

Dualism is bad because it's ambiguous. Infinitism is worse because it's infinite meaning.

Actually infinitism observes 1 meaning, infinity.

[Logik]

Actually the reciprocal nature of the golden rule as being derived from a circularity mirroring both abstract geometry and natural cycles observes an objective morality.

That is at the inter-personal scale.

I am talking about morality at the humanity-scale.

[Logik]

Actually infinitism observes 1 meaning, infinity.

That which means everything means nothing.

That which explains everything explains nothing.
That which predicts everything predicts nothing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually the reciprocal nature of the golden rule as being derived from a circularity mirroring both abstract geometry and natural cycles observes an objective morality.

That is at the inter-personal scale.

I am talking about morality at the humanity-scale.

Actually it applies to subjective self reflection and global politics as well (the alternation of communist and capitalist values, etc.).

[Veritas Aequitas]

If all relative truth exists as an approximation of an absolute truth, this approximation exists as an extension of the absolute in existence.

The fallacy of conflation is subject to conflation as their is no universal defintion as to what ambiguity is or is not.

As to the rest of what you say....pure self righteous gibberish as usual.

Relative truths are not approximations of any Absolute Truth.
Where is your proofs if you do not agree to the above?
You are merely jumping to conclusion there is an Absolute Truth.

Relative truths are truths that are conditioned to their specific Framework and System.
For example, scientific truths are true only as conditioned to the human agreed upon Scientific Framework, System and Methods.

It is a legal truth Ted Bundy was a convicted serial killer but only conditioned upon the US Constitution and its Laws.

There are economic, social, political, etc. truths that are subjected to their respective Framework and Systems.

There is no Absolute Truth that stands independently by itself.

Your desperation for an Absolute Truth is due to your internal terrible existential psychology. On a massive scale from the majority of theists, this clinging on an absolute truth has inspired terrible evil and violent acts.

"⊙"

Tell me how the axioms forming the above are not absolute.

The above axioms are conditioned by the Framework and System of Geometry which in turn is conditioned by the human conditions.
Since they are conditioned they cannot be absolutely absolute.

Absolute = totally unconditioned.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually infinitism observes 1 meaning, infinity.

That which means everything means nothing.

That which explains everything explains nothing.
That which predicts everything predicts nothing.

That which "x"'s nothing "x"'s everything.

[Logik]

Actually it applies to subjective self reflection and global politics as well (the alternation of communist and capitalist values, etc.).

The dialectic at any point in time seems extremely antithetical.

Focus on the point of convergence.

[Logik]

That which "x"'s nothing "x"'s everything.

Because you have just defined another number line