Revolution in Thought

[Eodnhoj7]

You can’t look at this in a vacuum. The economic system presented would work because people would not have to save for a rainy day and trillions of dollars would be available for growth. When war and crime come to an end even more money will be available for all kinds of new businesses. I know how this must sound because our world is 180 degrees opposite from this new world.

War and crime IMO are the natural results of our collective inability to respect differences in human "being." This respect has devolved into the artificial need for prestige defined by secular values. No amount of money will nullify the need for this devolved need. How would your system nullify the need for prestige or the social pecking order?

It changes everything, how we see ourselves, how we react to others, how we respect each other, etc., because the need for this prestige (which comes from deep-seated feelings of inferiority) will no longer be a factor in human relations.

You can have a dozen men sitting around a table discussing what they believe is essential to bring about world peace and mutual respect. Then the cute waitress walks by serving drinks and shaking her behind and all of a sudden it is every man for himself. The struggle for prestige necessary to win the lady begins again. If your system has figured out how to transcend the acquired need for social prestige, your book will succeed in answering a basic question that has stumped educated BS artists since the beginning of psychology.

It actually does solve the problem of relationships where so many people are seriously hurt by unrequited love. This is just an extension of the basic principle, Thou Shall Not Blame.

As you begin this chapter, a key fact must constantly be
borne in mind: No problem exists in man’s relations with
each other unless someone is being hurt in a concrete, not
imaginary, manner and it is the genuine hurt in romantic
relationships that this chapter is addressing. The first real and
concrete blow of the sexes is struck when a boy and girl are
encouraged and then rejected by the person with whom they have
fallen in love enough to desire marriage. More people have had their
heart broken and cut out with the knife of unrequited love than is
imaginable, and those who lose in this game are very unhappy
individuals because they have lost the very person they wanted to win.
I must remind the reader that our basic principle cannot prevent the
impossible. For example, it cannot prevent a girl from rejecting a boy
no matter how much he is in love when not to do so makes matters
worse for herself as would be the case if this necessitated that she
reject the boy who she is in love and who loves her, or that she rejects
the possibility of meeting someone with whom she could fall in love,
as much as she is now being loved.

In other words, not blaming your
lover for breaking your heart by leaving cannot undo the rejection,
just as not blaming the truck driver after an accident cannot prevent
what has already happened. But it can prevent the desire to take risks
that could get a boy and girl into this kind of situation where it is
necessary to reject the person who is in love with them, just as it
prevents them from desiring to take risks that lead to automobile
accidents. Premarital relations will come to a permanent end as well
as all adultery and divorce not because this is morally wrong and man
has decided at last to obey the Ten Commandments, but only because
we will be shown how to prevent our children’s hearts from being
broken by love that is not returned. To have loved and lost may be
better than never to have loved at all, but this is the lesser of two evils
and presupposes that there must always be a contest wherein someone
loses and gets hurt.

“But doesn’t there have to be losers when two or more people want
the same thing? In a hundred yard dash there is one winner, and the
rest are losers, and in a contest for one person, somebody has to
lose...”

“Providing there is a contest, but supposing there is none?”

“No contest? There has to be some kind of test. A girl doesn’t
marry anybody, nor does a boy.”

In order for you to appreciate this great change and for God to
perform this miracle, it is absolutely necessary that you understand
what causes our present environment to be so unforgiving where love
is concerned, therefore let me begin by defining in a mathematical
undeniable manner what we mean exactly by the word love, otherwise
we will be unable to have a solid basis for communication.

It is a very interesting perspective on "love". The great irony of philosophy is that it is usually grounded on some form of unrequited love in one form or another.

Socrates: "A man who finds a wife finds a good thing, the rest of us become philosopher's"; hence much of the reason much of philosophy is hostile and sterile in some degree or another.

Now is it all strictly "erotic/philios", that sets the standard for marriage...no, but practically speaking it is a large part of it. Even the process of "invention", a subset of philosophy if not a philosophical endeavor in itself, is about containing chaos (rightly or wrongly) in an effort to prevent the loss of some loved one.

Interesting piece.

[Eodnhoj7]

Not really if it is all premised in infinite variations of convergence/divergence as synthesis...all rationality and free will exists as an extension of common deterministic laws.

What is that which synthesises and how does it work?
Describe its behaviour in a framework of your choosing.

Had response, got carried away on another task, will reply to later.

[Nick_A]

“I love mankind, he said, "but I find to my amazement that the more I love mankind as a whole, the less I love man in particular.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Peacegirl

In order for you to appreciate this great change and for God to
perform this miracle, it is absolutely necessary that you understand
what causes our present environment to be so unforgiving where love
is concerned, therefore let me begin by defining in a mathematical
undeniable manner what we mean exactly by the word love, otherwise
we will be unable to have a solid basis for communication.

You seem to be describing love as limited to the concept of romantic love. The following aphorism by Gurdjieff describes three distinct types of love. It seems to that anyone capable of conscious love would not be burdened with the negative emotions associated with romantic love

34. Conscious love evokes the same in response. Emotional love evokes the opposite. Physical love depends on type and polarity

.

Does this description of qualities of love resonate with you? If it does, it would seem that our loss of human consciousness as described in Plato’s cave allegory by our attachments to the shadows on the wall is the essential problem and prevents us from being truly human. Conscious love is impossible without human consciousness so the question becomes how to become a conscious being capable of conscious action instead of a creature of conditioned reaction?

You do not question the necessity of teaching
your children the difference between right and wrong — but differ
quite a bit on how to get children to obey what you think is right.
What you know is better for your child is already taken for granted
right from birth, which thoughts are contained in the words and air
you breathe.

You seem to be describing the goal of indoctrination. It is also the goal of secular progressive education which seeks to create conditioned things which react appropriately in accordance with the given secular progressive standards.

The alternative is a human education which by developing the ability for conscious attention allows the young to experience through conscious witnessing what is natural for the soul as opposed to becoming a slave to their unnatural psychological defense of negative emotions.

[peacegirl]

“I love mankind, he said, "but I find to my amazement that the more I love mankind as a whole, the less I love man in particular.”
― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Peacegirl

In order for you to appreciate this great change and for God to
perform this miracle, it is absolutely necessary that you understand
what causes our present environment to be so unforgiving where love
is concerned, therefore let me begin by defining in a mathematical
undeniable manner what we mean exactly by the word love, otherwise
we will be unable to have a solid basis for communication.

You seem to be describing love as limited to the concept of romantic love. The following aphorism by Gurdjieff describes three distinct types of love. It seems to that anyone capable of conscious love would not be burdened with the negative emotions associated with romantic love

34. Conscious love evokes the same in response. Emotional love evokes the opposite. Physical love depends on type and polarity

.

Does this description of qualities of love resonate with you?

The love he was describing was the romantic (physical) type of love, and how the new world will prevent so many young people from getting seriously hurt due to break-up after break-up. Please understand that the dating situation in this world is the opposite of what our children will experience in the new world. This 180 degree turnaround makes it a challenge to consider that this world could actually become a reality since it's so different from the world in which we live. That means you have to keep an open-mind which many people in here are failing to do.

If it does, it would seem that our loss of human consciousness as described in Plato’s cave allegory by our attachments to the shadows on the wall is the essential problem and prevents us from being truly human. Conscious love is impossible without human consciousness so the question becomes how to become a conscious being capable of conscious action instead of a creature of conditioned reaction?

You do not question the necessity of teaching
your children the difference between right and wrong — but differ
quite a bit on how to get children to obey what you think is right.
What you know is better for your child is already taken for granted
right from birth, which thoughts are contained in the words and air
you breathe.

You seem to be describing the goal of indoctrination. It is also the goal of secular progressive education which seeks to create conditioned things which react appropriately in accordance with the given secular progressive standards.

The alternative is a human education which by developing the ability for conscious attention allows the young to experience through conscious witnessing what is natural for the soul as opposed to becoming a slave to their unnatural psychological defense of negative emotions.

What is natural for the soul is to find love with the dream of that love lasting. Why do you think so many children's movies and classics are based on love where the prince saves the damsel? This is not a far-fetched dream after all.

[peacegirl]

For anyone who came here late and didn't see my posting of the first three chapters, here it is again. I don't think I'll be here for very much longer and I wanted people to have this, if they find this thread interesting.

http://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ ... IhJbxCePVk

[Eodnhoj7]

Not really if it is all premised in infinite variations of convergence/divergence as synthesis...all rationality and free will exists as an extension of common deterministic laws.

What is that which synthesises and how does it work?
Describe its behaviour in a framework of your choosing.

The foundations of synthesis result from an inherent underlying symmetry inherent within all phenomenon, relative to there individual contexts as well as certain universal symmetries that extend across the "whole" of being.

1. All phenomenon synthesize; hence all phenomenon are not just synthetic in nature but synthesis "is" the phenomenon itself.

ex: 1 in a particulate state may effectively join itself to itself as 2, but this act of synthesis is still 1: 1(2), 1(3), 1(4), etc. Another may be sexual pair bonding of male and female observed under the "child" or "marriage/coupling". Another may be Capitalism and Communism as Nazism. Etc.

2. Synthesis is both the form and function of convergence and divergence; hence synthesis is both convergence/divergence.

ex: 1 may diverge to 1 and 1, while simultaneously joining as 2. The process of divergence maintains a simultaneous convergence, and vice versa relative to the context with context itself being subject to the same laws.

Context A: 1 diverges to 1 and 1.
Context B: observes context A as 2 through convergence
Context C: 2(1) observes context A and B as converging while 2,1 may observe context A and B as divergent. Each number, and number as a group, respectively is synthetic as a process of convergence/divergence in themselves

Context A: Child diverges from mother and father
Context B: Family as context A through convergence
Context C: Family(Father, Mother, Child) observes context A and B as converging while Family,Father,Mother,Child observe Contexts A and B as diverging. Each "class", and "group of classes" respectively is synthetic as a process of convergence/divergence in themselves.

Therefore:

Context A: Axiom A diverges to Axioms B and C with "⏅" observing intuitively the "top" of the triangle as unity directed to a
base of multiplicity: A ⏅ (B,C). This can be observed synonymously to the "or" "⋁" logical connective where the base of the symbol, representing "unity" moves "upward" to a state of divergence.

Context B: Axiom B and C converge dually to Axiom A with "⏄" observing intuitively the "bottom" of the triangle as multiplicity directed toward a base of unity: (B,C) ⏄ A. This can be observed synonymously to the "and" "⋀" logical connective where the base of the symbol, representing "multiplicity" moves "upwards" to a state of convergence.

Context C: Axioms (A,B,C) all exist through a process of simultaneous convergence/divergence from a third context with "⊤" observing intuitively the joining of isomorphic properties as "synthesis" in and of itself: ⊤(A,B,C). This can be observed as simultaneous "and/or" logical connectives.

All phenomenon exists as convergence/divergence; hence all phenonmenon are both form/function.
⊤(A,(B,C)) → ⊤(A ⏅ (B,C) , (B,C) ⏄ A)

And "synthesis" is subject to synthesis recursively as a cause and effect (approximation of a cause as a cause in itself through the cause) paradigm.
Synthesis is "deterministic" in nature due to its repetition of convergence/divergence as a structure; and as recursive cycles the same symmetry which is the foundation for determinism. "⊜" as both an "equal" sign and "circle" sign observes equivalent as a cycle. This circular nature is the foundation for "absolute" axioms

⊤(x) ⊜ ⊤(x1)


Dually Synthesis "acausal" in nature due to its inversive/isomorphic properties where one axiom inverts to a similar axiom. "→" observes "directed away from its origins, through its origins" thus necessitating an inherently "isomorphic" property due to a projection away from one origin effectively resulting in a similiar phenomenon. This progressive nature is the foundation for "relativistic" axioms.

⊤(x) → ⊤(x1)


3. The convergence of one phenomena to (an)other phenomenon(s) requires an isomorphic symmetry between the phenomena.
ex: 1 diverges to (1,1) = 1(2). The nature of 1 joining to 1 observes 1 as having a common symmetry though it is inherently seperate. The isomorphism occurs, where 1 as "unity" effectively is observed as 1 as "many", with unity/many having fundamentally similar properties to the other.

This isomorphic symmetry does not have to exist within the entirety of the phenomena, as the phenomena itself, but inherently within parts/elements of the phenomena. For example Axiom A and Axiom B are variations of eachother, and as variation contain elements of assymetry to one another. However Axiom A may contain elements of Isomorphic symmetry to Axiom B (using base sexuality of organism's can be a common natural example) that effectively allows a joining.

ex: 3 does not equal 4 in the context of this example, nor standard arithmetic. However 4 and 3 share a base element of being composed of "1", hence can "join" as 7,12,64,81 because of the common element of 1.

This isomorphic symmetry, for examples sake will be observed as "A>" (active/projective) and "P>" (passive/receptive), observes the inversion of one space to another. A child may observe "A>" as a cube and "P>" as the hole in which to put the cube in within a board, but this inversion observes a distinct separation of the board from the cube. Isomorophism observes an inherent process of inversion and is the foundation for relativity, as observed in point 2, where the "cube" and "board" are parts of eachother. The recursive properties of the cube and board, as structures that exist through eachother, can be observed under the common quality of "wood" which effectively is the underlying causal median of the board and cube as a structure.

This symmetry effectively observes a replication of certain common parts/elements, percieved in distinctly seperate and various phenomenon, as having a common bond across not just a set of phenomenon but all phenomenon themselves.

[Logik]

The foundations of synthesis result from an inherent underlying symmetry inherent within all phenomenon relative to there individual contexts as well as certain universal symmetries that extend across the "whole" of being.

That's a false premise.

To assume symmetry is to make the same error every IYI (Intellectual Yet Idiot) makes. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

Asymmetry is everywhere! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)

[Eodnhoj7]

The foundations of synthesis result from an inherent underlying symmetry inherent within all phenomenon relative to there individual contexts as well as certain universal symmetries that extend across the "whole" of being.

That's a false premise.

To assume symmetry is to make the same error every IYI (Intellectual Yet Idiot) makes. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

Asymmetry is everywhere! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)

Actually symmetry is everywhere, check the impossibility of randomness thread in the metaphysics section.

Second assemetry, is an antithetical statement necessitating an inherent thetical statement ("symmetry" in this case) to exist. To assume asymmetry necessitates symmetry to understand it.

Asymmetry is everywhere as all symmetry while constant, is dually approximate.

Don't worry this is a common mistakes NIYI (non intellect yst idiots) make.

So preach to me about type theory as the be all and end all of your religion.

[Logik]

The foundations of synthesis result from an inherent underlying symmetry inherent within all phenomenon relative to there individual contexts as well as certain universal symmetries that extend across the "whole" of being.

That's a false premise.

To assume symmetry is to make the same error every IYI (Intellectual Yet Idiot) makes. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

Asymmetry is everywhere! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)

Actually symmetry is everywhere, check the impossibility of randomness thread in the metaphysics section.

Second assemetry, is an antithetical statement necessitating an inherent thetical statement ("symmetry" in this case) to exist. To assume asymmetry necessitates symmetry to understand it.

Asymmetry is everywhere as all symmetry while constant, is dually approximate.

Don't worry this is a common mistakes NIYI (non intellect yst idiots) make.

So preach to me about type theory as the be all and end all of your religion.

Randomness/uncertainty is a prime example of asymmetry.

Informational asymmetry. The Kolmogorov complexity of your mind vs the Kolmogorov complexity of the universe.

My “religion” is simply universal logic.

It is still used in combination with counter-factual reasoning. Because I don’t treat logic as anything else than a modeling tool.

That is “when your model fails...” (and it will).

Symbol manipulation (in any form) is not the be-all-end-all.

It is a useful tool. But you seem to worship it...

[Eodnhoj7]

That's a false premise.

To assume symmetry is to make the same error every IYI (Intellectual Yet Idiot) makes. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellec ... 211e2d0577

Asymmetry is everywhere! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)

Actually symmetry is everywhere, check the impossibility of randomness thread in the metaphysics section.

Second assemetry, is an antithetical statement necessitating an inherent thetical statement ("symmetry" in this case) to exist. To assume asymmetry necessitates symmetry to understand it.

Asymmetry is everywhere as all symmetry while constant, is dually approximate.

Don't worry this is a common mistakes NIYI (non intellect yst idiots) make.

So preach to me about type theory as the be all and end all of your religion.

Randomness/uncertainty is a prime example of asymmetry.

Not really when it is repeated as a constant point of inversion between a unified state into multiple ones. What we understand of randomness is fundamentally divergence as a recursive phenomenon.

Randomness as repeated necessitates it as a law of order.

Informational asymmetry. The Kolmogorov complexity of your mind vs the Kolmogorov complexity of the universe.

False dichotomy, as both effectively form the other through energy transference.



My “religion” is simply universal logic.

Actually saying "universal" logic is "yours" does not make it universal.



It is still used in combination with counter-factual reasoning. Because I don’t treat logic as anything else than a modeling tool.

A tool may form reality, but the tool as formed is still an extension of reality.

That is “when your model fails...” (and it will).

Not really, because randomness and contradiction are laws. The model states it will result in variation that exist as extension's of the law.

Symbol manipulation (in any form) is not the be-all-end-all.

But definition is? What seperates definition from symbolism?

It is a useful tool. But you seem to worship it...


I cannot worship, place above or below me, that which I exist through.

[Logik]

Actually symmetry is everywhere, check the impossibility of randomness thread in the metaphysics section.

Second assemetry, is an antithetical statement necessitating an inherent thetical statement ("symmetry" in this case) to exist. To assume asymmetry necessitates symmetry to understand it.

Asymmetry is everywhere as all symmetry while constant, is dually approximate.

Don't worry this is a common mistakes NIYI (non intellect yst idiots) make.

So preach to me about type theory as the be all and end all of your religion.

Randomness/uncertainty is a prime example of asymmetry.

Not really when it is repeated as a constant point of inversion between a unified state into multiple ones. What we understand of randomness is fundamentally divergence as a recursive phenomenon.

Randomness as repeated necessitates it as a law of order.

Informational asymmetry. The Kolmogorov complexity of your mind vs the Kolmogorov complexity of the universe.

False dichotomy, as both effectively form the other through energy transference.



My “religion” is simply universal logic.

Actually saying "universal" logic is "yours" does not make it universal.



It is still used in combination with counter-factual reasoning. Because I don’t treat logic as anything else than a modeling tool.

A tool may form reality, but the tool as formed is still an extension of reality.

That is “when your model fails...” (and it will).

Not really, because randomness and contradiction are laws. The model states it will result in variation that exist as extension's of the law.

Symbol manipulation (in any form) is not the be-all-end-all.

But definition is? What seperates definition from symbolism?

It is a useful tool. But you seem to worship it...


I cannot worship, place above or below me, that which I exist through.

That's a lot of babble in English.

Define your semantics and axioms in logic. So that I can hold you accountable to them.

Lambda calculus is Turing-complete. If you have another formulation of "completeness" - be our guest and state it.

Or if you have a notion of incompleteness against which Turing-completeness falls short - state it too.

[Eodnhoj7]

Randomness/uncertainty is a prime example of asymmetry.

Not really when it is repeated as a constant point of inversion between a unified state into multiple ones. What we understand of randomness is fundamentally divergence as a recursive phenomenon.

Randomness as repeated necessitates it as a law of order.

Informational asymmetry. The Kolmogorov complexity of your mind vs the Kolmogorov complexity of the universe.

False dichotomy, as both effectively form the other through energy transference.



My “religion” is simply universal logic.

Actually saying "universal" logic is "yours" does not make it universal.



It is still used in combination with counter-factual reasoning. Because I don’t treat logic as anything else than a modeling tool.

A tool may form reality, but the tool as formed is still an extension of reality.

That is “when your model fails...” (and it will).

Not really, because randomness and contradiction are laws. The model states it will result in variation that exist as extension's of the law.

Symbol manipulation (in any form) is not the be-all-end-all.

But definition is? What seperates definition from symbolism?

It is a useful tool. But you seem to worship it...


I cannot worship, place above or below me, that which I exist through.

That's a lot of babble in English.

Define your semantics and axioms in logic. So that I can hold you accountable to them.

Lambda calculus is Turing-complete. If you have another formulation of "completeness" - be our guest and state it

Define "logic" and the foundations are subject to an infinite regress where you have no foundations even for the logical model's you offer.

Rofl!!! "Hold me accountable"...you are the one furiously defending...whatever it is you are pushing. Your identity and value as computer programmer most likely.

The nature of logic, founded in definition, necessitates symbolism where the definitive nature of reality necessitates all reality as symbolic so that logic itself is subject to infinitism as a foundation with "finiteness" resulting a a variation these facets...but still existing ad-infinitum; hence canceling itself out by the weight of its own contradictory nature alone.

You do not accept "infinity" as a foundation or coherent axiom; and instead push "finiteness"...okay so define that without necessitating an infinite state that effectively sets the grounds and definition for "that".

The only thing you create is "uncertainty" itself as an extension of your own perception of not just reality, but the system you push as an idolized foundation of that reality. It is only a point of inversion, between one set of symbols and another, and as such is effectively "nothing" as this inversive quality is already presented without a need to replicate it. As such your "system" is an extension of already existing laws and is predetermined...it is not yours at all.

The "death of philosophy thread" provides these axioms. However on a separate note, the continual repetition of symbolic nature of reality (grounded in the axioms of space due to there point,linear,circular nature) observes all space as causal in itself and the framework of "computing" you are pushing simply a variation of "the One" and contradictory on its own terms when set as the premise for truth.

You want to control reality, because like most zealots you have deep doubts about what control really is or the system you push.

[Logik]

Define "logic" and the foundations are subject to an infinite regress where you have no foundations even for the logical model's you offer.

Sure. In what definitional framework would you like me to do it in?

As soon as you lay out the rules I will define "logic" for you.

Rofl!!! "Hold me accountable"...you are the one furiously defending...whatever it is you are pushing. Your identity and value as computer programmer most likely.

How many times do I have to reject the law of identity and tell you that I am Logik.

What I DO is decision theory. What I DO is programming. That's not who I am.

What I am "defending" is my tools. I think they are more useful than yours.

Maybe you are projecting?

You want to control reality, because like most zealots you have deep doubts about what control really is or the system you push.

Maybe you want to burn everything to the ground because you are angry that you were lied about "truth" ?

[Eodnhoj7]

Define "logic" and the foundations are subject to an infinite regress where you have no foundations even for the logical model's you offer.

Sure. In what definitional framework would you like me to do it in?

As soon as you lay out the rules I will define "logic" for you.

Prime Triad, death of philosophy thread.

Rofl!!! "Hold me accountable"...you are the one furiously defending...whatever it is you are pushing. Your identity and value as computer programmer most likely.

How many times do I have to reject the law of identity and tell you that I am Logik.


What I DO is decision theory. What I DO is programming. That's not who I am.

What I am "defending" is my tools. I think they are more useful than yours.

Maybe you are projecting?

Useful to who? You? What exactly is this "use" you keep pushing. It is such a wide ranging word. Practicality? People live and die with or without computers. Computation just makes the simple aspects of life more complex, thus leading to inherent confusion.

The computer programmers, by point out everything is a problem and chaotic, are just the harbingers of there own fears. They are problematic by their own admission.


And "decision theory?"...premised in the contradictory nature of binary logic...not decision there.

Your tools do not work given enough time, because they are subject to the same entropy you are trying to control...as a matter of fact they are just an extension of it.

Computer programming is just semantics, the science of semantics has been applied in a wholer form long before the invention of the computer. Computer programming is just semantics entropying over time.

You want to control reality, because like most zealots you have deep doubts about what control really is or the system you push.

Maybe you want to burn everything to the ground because you are angry that you were lied about "truth" ?


Reality is in a perpetual state of being burnt away and recreated, it is law. Anger, no anger, both, neither...what is a lie is that computer programming is the be all end all.

It is just ego, nothing more or less. Control the uncontrollable.

[Logik]

Prime Triad, death of philosophy thread.

You've outlined no semantics or a HOWTO. Nobody else but you can use it.

Useful to who? You? What exactly is this "use" you keep pushing.

It's useful to me.
And to my fiance.
And to my familly.
And to my community
And to my society

This "use" I keep pushing is the maximisation of human values. Wellbeing, freedom, autonomy. Choose your poison.

It is such a wide ranging word. Practicality? People live and die with or without computers. Computation just makes the simple aspects of life more complex, thus leading to inherent confusion.

The computer programmers, by point out everything is a problem and chaotic, are just the harbingers of there own fears. They are problematic by their own admission.


And "decision theory?"...premised in the contradictory nature of binary logic...not decision there.



Your tools do not work given enough time, because they are subject to the same entropy you are trying to control...as a matter of fact they are just an extension of it.

Computer programming is just semantics, the science of semantics has been applied in a wholer form long before the invention of the computer. Computer programming is just semantics entropying over time.[/color]

You want to control reality, because like most zealots you have deep doubts about what control really is or the system you push.

Maybe you want to burn everything to the ground because you are angry that you were lied about "truth" ?


Reality is in a perpetual state of being burnt away and recreated, it is law. Anger, no anger, both, neither...what is a lie is that computer programming is the be all end all.

It is just ego, nothing more or less. Control the uncontrollable.

Maybe you should send me your rejection of computation via the post office. This performative contradiction isn't really doing it for your argument.

You have a very narrow view of what computation is. Hint: it's not programming. It's solving problems. Computers are just tools.

Too bad you can't even define what a "problem" is in your own "prime triad" framework. When I can do it in Temporal logic.