The Limits of Morality

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3442
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:23 pm

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:14 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:10 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:06 pm


The foundations of logic is the assumption (hope?) that reality has some semblance of structure and behaves according to some set of identifiable rules.

If this assumption is false the fact that logic works is mere coincidence that could be falsified tomorrow morning when we wake up in a Salvador Dali painting.
Logic as descriptive, necessitates description as order.

The question of "foundation" necessitates a point of origin.
It merely necessitates the human desire for order.

The universe owes us nothing. Logic is just abstract structuralism.

Like I said - the foundational question does not bother me. Not even a little. There are very many possible points of origin. Very many possible axioms.

Very many logics.
The universe made us, from the premise of empiricism, and the question of desire exists synonymous to a "vacuum" state and exists as a part of natural law.

To argue very many axioms and logics, necessitates logic/axioms as manifesting under a continuum as a foundational axiom.

Logik
Posts: 3015
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:28 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:23 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:14 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:10 pm

Logic as descriptive, necessitates description as order.

The question of "foundation" necessitates a point of origin.
It merely necessitates the human desire for order.

The universe owes us nothing. Logic is just abstract structuralism.

Like I said - the foundational question does not bother me. Not even a little. There are very many possible points of origin. Very many possible axioms.

Very many logics.
The universe made us, from the premise of empiricism, and the question of desire exists synonymous to a "vacuum" state and exists as a part of natural law.

To argue very many axioms and logics, necessitates logic/axioms as manifesting under a continuum as a foundational axiom.
Just as it made is it can unmake us and it wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. We are insignificant in proportion. We are a rather temporary phenomenon.

Our desire for order and structure is simply a desire to hold onto this form. Against the universe’s bigger plans.

No foundational axiom is needed here. Just combinatorics. And chaos.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3442
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:00 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:28 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:23 pm
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:14 pm

It merely necessitates the human desire for order.

The universe owes us nothing. Logic is just abstract structuralism.

Like I said - the foundational question does not bother me. Not even a little. There are very many possible points of origin. Very many possible axioms.

Very many logics.
The universe made us, from the premise of empiricism, and the question of desire exists synonymous to a "vacuum" state and exists as a part of natural law.

To argue very many axioms and logics, necessitates logic/axioms as manifesting under a continuum as a foundational axiom.
Just as it made is it can unmake us and it wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. We are insignificant in proportion. We are a rather temporary phenomenon.

Our desire for order and structure is simply a desire to hold onto this form. Against the universe’s bigger plans.

No foundational axiom is needed here. Just combinatorics. And chaos.
So chaos is the foundation of logic?

Logik
Posts: 3015
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:38 am

You are still looking for a foundation...

Logic is man-made.

Humans are the foundation of logic.

Dapplegrim
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:02 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Dapplegrim » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:57 pm

Logik wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:50 pm
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you've blatantly misused dozens of words
Alert! Alert! We have a linguistic prescriptivist.

This could be forgivable if we lived in Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, but we don't.
Judaka wrote:
Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:57 pm
you make no effort to be understood and it's a bit sad to watch.
Translation "You make no effort to put your ideas in a language I can understand".

I would be happy to explain my ideas to you if you pay my hourly rate ;)

I would probably start by aligning our background/theoretical knowledge though, and potentially - providing you with reading material on the latest developments (last 30-40 years) in mathematics, physics and computer science. Start with Wittgenstein, perhaps? Learn why language is imprecise. Learn why definitions are all recursive and why they have no objective meaning.

Feynman said: "If you can't explain it simply then you don't understand it". He was mostly right, but I still can't explain quantum physics to a toddler.
If you were just a little bit more mature you would realise that you are a child.

Logik
Posts: 3015
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:58 pm

Dapplegrim wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:57 pm
If you were just a little bit more mature you would realise that you are a child.
If I were a child you should be embarrassed with your inability to understand what I am saying.
Your knowledge should far exceed mine in proportion to our age differences.

Yet all you offer is an ad hominem.

Perhaps age is not a very good predictor of intellect.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3442
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:39 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:38 am
You are still looking for a foundation...

Logic is man-made.

Humans are the foundation of logic.
And what is human but "that which reflects?"


Recursion is meaning.

Dapplegrim
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2017 11:02 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Dapplegrim » Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:45 pm

Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:58 pm
Dapplegrim wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:57 pm
If you were just a little bit more mature you would realise that you are a child.
If I were a child you should be embarrassed with your inability to understand what I am saying.
Your knowledge should far exceed mine in proportion to our age differences.

Yet all you offer is an ad hominem.

Perhaps age is not a very good predictor of intellect.
Unfortunately ad hominems become necessary when conversing with a liar.

Logik
Posts: 3015
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:21 pm

Dapplegrim wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 8:45 pm
Unfortunately ad hominems become necessary when conversing with a liar.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Last edited by Logik on Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Logik
Posts: 3015
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:01 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:39 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:38 am
You are still looking for a foundation...

Logic is man-made.

Humans are the foundation of logic.
And what is human but "that which reflects?"


Recursion is meaning.
Recursion is meaningful. I don’t know if it is complete.

The shortest, meaningful, ontologically true sentence that adheres to the correspondence theory of truth is: “I”.

Some would insist that a verb is required e.g I exist, but metaphysics is a trap.

The verb is implicit in me uttering “I”.
The thing that says “I” exists or the sentence wouldn’t.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3442
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:14 am

Logik wrote:
Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:01 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:39 pm
Logik wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:38 am
You are still looking for a foundation...

Logic is man-made.

Humans are the foundation of logic.
And what is human but "that which reflects?"


Recursion is meaning.
Recursion is meaningful. I don’t know if it is complete.

The shortest, meaningful, ontologically true sentence that adheres to the correspondence theory of truth is: “I”.

Some would insist that a verb is required e.g I exist, but metaphysics is a trap.

The verb is implicit in me uttering “I”.
The thing that says “I” exists or the sentence wouldn’t.
1. Completion cannot occur in a linear progressive system.

2. Completion can occur in self referencing.

3. However point 2 is subject to point 1; all self referencing systems requires a progressive system to be defined.

4. So a contradiction occurs, the loop requires a progressive nature and the progressive nature ends in a loop.

5. The solution is synthesis as progression through looping. This is observed in the solution to the munchausen trillema thread.

6. I, as a reflective act equivalent to a unification of identity through a center point occurs through points 1 through 5 with point 6 being subject to the same nature. This argument is rational, but open to further expansion/contraction.

Logik
Posts: 3015
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Logik » Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:11 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:14 am
1. Completion cannot occur in a linear progressive system.

2. Completion can occur in self referencing.
What I mean by completeness is thus: Recursion is meaningful, but I am not sure if that is all there is to meaning.

This is similar to the logical property of completeness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:14 am
5. The solution is synthesis as progression through looping. This is observed in the solution to the munchausen trillema thread.
This is a skip and a jump from logic to epistemology.

Logical systems are tools. They land themselves to objective analysis and they exhibit properties/phenomena/behaviours.

How one uses logic and what one uses logic for is entirely up to the user. I don't believe the trillema is solvable. For if you solve the trillema, you have necessarily solved the Halting problem.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 3442
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:43 pm

Logik wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:11 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:14 am
1. Completion cannot occur in a linear progressive system.

2. Completion can occur in self referencing.
What I mean by completeness is thus: Recursion is meaningful, but I am not sure if that is all there is to meaning.

This is similar to the logical property of completeness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completeness_(logic)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:14 am
5. The solution is synthesis as progression through looping. This is observed in the solution to the munchausen trillema thread.
This is a skip and a jump from logic to epistemology.

Logical systems are tools. They land themselves to objective analysis and they exhibit properties/phenomena/behaviours.

How one uses logic and what one uses logic for is entirely up to the user. I don't believe the trillema is solvable. For if you solve the trillema, you have necessarily solved the Halting problem.
1. Every property derived using that system, still necessitates recursion of the axioms which form that system both through the axioms and the proofs which occur through it.

If an axiom is justified as complete by the framework which extends from it, then all phenomena (and not just logic or math) are complete in themselves and yet ironically are effectively "nothing".

"Completeness" is just point 0 under these terms.

2. Epistemology is justified by the logical systems which form it as all of epistemology is justified by logic. Logic in turn is justified by axioms justified by epistemology, and the "categories" of logic and epistemology reference a form of completeness through there circularity.

3. "Logic systems are tools" is an epitstomelogical statement justified by logic through logic as logic. This references point 2.

4. Meaning is equilibrium, all equilibrium exists through continuity considering what does not continue...does not mean anything as it ceases to exist.

5. The Halting Problem references a problem of "end point" vs. "Continuity" with this end point being determined by the problem of the programmer. The programmer determines the program. For the program to effectively to choose it's own end point it would need a dual opposing program, symmetrical to it, where both programs effectively observe simultaneous loops.

It sets up a foundation for choice within the program, so when an outside variable is introduce (a problem, seperate program, etc.) The variable acts as a foundation for super positioning of one of the programs.

The correlative symmetry between the variable and program effectively allows one of the programs to continue in a different state, while allowing the seperate dual program to keep running. Hence continuity is maintained while giving an end point.

Choice in the program becomes an adaptation to variables by providing a series if programs which act as an effective "shield" for a core program that keeps other programs in a perpetual loop cycle through them.

Charm
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:13 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by Charm » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:45 am

-1- wrote:
Wed Dec 26, 2018 2:21 am
Charm wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 6:58 am
I wouldn't read too much into morality... Yes; it is essential for society, but if people had to figure out how it works to make it work they would remain immoral..
I have edited a paper on morality that someone wrote and it made sense to me. Maybe someday some publisher will help the writer to get it into print. Unfortunately for the writer, the writer is not a professor of philosophy, so publishers either jeer at his work, or else are scared to downgrade their paper's reputation and respectability by publishing a piece of work without a Ph.D. behind it.

For me, it made sense, I'd even say it was brilliant. But hey, I'm just another poster on philosophy boards; I don't write history.
The object of possessed knowledge is to communicate, and there is no law against that.. The authorities of this age will never appreciate the knowledge of the next age.. They are masters of their forms, and all are the products of their forms, but unless one stands outside of their forms and formalities there will never be a higher understanding.. The goal of philosophy is not to learn the form of philosophy as it is taught, but to learn what all forms have in common, and what each can teach us.. Philosophy isn't about achieving a poor existence as a published author, but is about the rich life of knowledge owning the key to all knowledge allows us.. I have my reward.. I gave it to myself.. Every award and recognition pales before it.. I am a god..

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2302
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: The Limits of Morality

Post by -1- » Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:04 am

Charm, why do you use two points after each sentence? You fear one would not be enough to signify that the sentence is over? It is unconventional what you do, distracting, and it downplays your apparent otherwise possibly high intelligence.

Read any text in any publication. Newspapers. Magazines. Books. You will see one point after each nominative sentence. You have not noticed that yet? Or what?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest