Morality as Symmetry in Time

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:33 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm
Are you under some sort of illusion that there is one answer for ALL questions?
Red herring.

We are still talking about your answer to the question "Can humans reason?".
You said "Yes".
And then you said "To the best of my knowledge."

So we are not talking about ALL answers. We are talking about that ONE, single and particular "Yes" answer.
To that one single and particular question "Can humans reason?"
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm
In regards to WHAT EXACTLY?
In regards to the knowledge which you used to deduce the answer to "Can humans reason?"
Is that knowledge infallible?

Yes or no.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm

Do you tell health experts about YOUR precious coin and what it says and tells you?
If my "health experts" are as clueless about probability theory as you are - yes!

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." --Richard Feynman

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:21 pm
Are you sure you do NOT know how to reason, or could you just by lying?
Wow,! Now you are accusing me of lying?
I NEVER accused you of any thing.

YOU are just once again making up absolutely ridiculous and stupid ASSUMPTIONS, which are plainly WRONG, once again. Just because you do things, that does NOT mean that I am necessarily doing the same.

When will you ever just remain OPEN and notice and SEE what is going on here?

I asked you are truly OPEN clarifying question. You, however, once again and very foolishly just made an ASSUMPTION, without ever answering the actual question, once again.

When you do start answering My actual questions?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
I am busy deducing. As it can be plainly seen! You seem to be claiming that over and above my obvious ability to make valid deductions I ALSO have some other thing you call "reason".
Evidence please?

Already evidenced within YOUR writings.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
By Occam's razor the simplest explanation stands. I can deduce because I am good at deduction.
EQUALLY, you can also deduce because you are bad at deduction. As evidenced.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:21 pm
If this is meant to imply that you are skilled at deduction, then explain how you can deduce without reason.
I don't know! But I a doing it! I am deducing. Right here. Right now.

Do you not believe what you see?
This is just more evidence.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:21 pm
If you are so called skilled at deduction, without reason, then just explain the step-by-step process that you take.
I take a general statement which is assumed to be true and then I make particular inferences about things.

If all humans are mortal. And Age is a human. Then Age is mortal.
Through that type of reasoning, you are WRONG.

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:21 pm
Provide examples of HOW you can deduce without reason.
Pay attention (again).

All humans are mortal.
Age is human.
Therefore Age is mortal.

There! Deduction.
With reason?

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:21 pm
But I have still justified my yes response.
Not so quick there sport. I made sure you can't jump through that loophole ;)
No you did NOT. I had ALREADY justified my yes response. You were just to slow to notice that I had.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
Remember when I said I am not look for a justification, I am looking for a VALID justification?

Yeah. You probably forgot.
Once again, making an ASSUMPTION and JUMPING straight to a conclusion, without any clarification first. You just jump straight to the conclusion without any reason at all.

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:30 pm
Your justification is invalid. Because it's fallacious.
Did you NOT noticed what I have written.

And, how did you deduce that?

Did you just "deduce" without any reason whatsoever?

Do you always deduce without any reason whatsoever?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
I NEVER accused you of any thing.
You have stated that me lying is a plausible hypothesis/explanation.

That is an accusation...
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
When you do start answering My actual questions?
Maybe you should state them as yes/no questions? So there's no misunderstanding? ;)

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
This is just more evidence.
Indeed. My deduction is evidence that I can deduce.

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
Through that type of reasoning, you are WRONG.
It's not reasoning. It's deduction. It's not wrong. It's how deduction works.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
With reason?
No. With deduction.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
Did you just "deduce" without any reason whatsoever?

Do you always deduce without any reason whatsoever?
Yes I did. I thought we established that I don't need reason for deduction?

You seem to think that by insisting that I am reasoning and not deducting that you are somehow going to force me into accepting your unjustified opinion.

Don't do that with girls. It's illegal, OK?

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm
Are you under some sort of illusion that there is one answer for ALL questions?
Red herring.
You asked a specific question. I replied to YOUR 'specific' question. Then you write "red herring".

Here is some advice for you; Do NOT ask specific questions if you do NOT want Me to respond to them specifically.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:33 pm
We are still talking about your answer to the question "Can humans reason?".
You said "Yes".
So what?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:33 pm
And then you said "To the best of my knowledge."
No I did NOT.

I already TOLD you that.

Yet you, once again, completely failed to SEE or ABSORB that. This is probably because you BELIEVE your OWN assumptions, AND, you do NOT reason when you deduce. Meaning you just JUMP straight to conclusions, and worse still, you do this from your very own inevitably WRONG assumptions. That is the REASON WHY you can NOT ever justify your position.

So we are not talking about ALL answers. We are talking about that ONE, single and particular "Yes" answer.
To that one single and particular question "Can humans reason?"[/quote]

Okay. I am glad that you NOW cleared that up, finally.

How many more times do you think we will have to go through this?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm
In regards to WHAT EXACTLY?
In regards to the knowledge which you used to deduce the answer to "Can humans reason?"
Is that knowledge infallible?

Yes or no.
That would depend.

I have ALREADY shown how my answer is VALIDLY justified.

But some might NOT have yet NOTICED this.

Are you at all aware that; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:33 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm

Do you tell health experts about YOUR precious coin and what it says and tells you?
If my "health experts" are as clueless about probability theory as you are - yes!

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." --Richard Feynman
'Science' is just another word, having different definitions and different meanings to different people.

By the way, does using the word "theory" mean that what you are saying is True, Right, and Correct, or is it just a "theory"?

Like with ALL "theories" when one LOOKS past the wrongness in them, then what IS actually True, Right, and Correct can be SEEN.

One day, hopefully, you to will LEARN how to do this. But at the current rate you are going I doubt it. But there is still hope for you yet. That is WHY I do NOT give up on you.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:19 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
I have ALREADY shown how my answer is VALIDLY justified.
Liar. You have not done any such thing.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
Are you at all aware that; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer?
Yes. They teach this in Physics.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
By the way, does using the word "theory" mean that what you are saying is True, Right, and Correct, or is it just a "theory"?

Like with ALL "theories" when one LOOKS past the wrongness in them, then what IS actually True, Right, and Correct can be SEEN.
It's just a theory, but all theories are not made equal. Some theories are more wrong than others.

Some make fewer and less precise predictions than others. How do we measure the precision of predictions? With a coin!

A coin is only wrong 50% of the time. Some theories fare MUCH worse.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
One day, hopefully, you to will LEARN how to do this. But at the current rate you are going I doubt it. But there is still hope for you yet. That is WHY I do NOT give up on you.
We'll see who's going to learn from whom ;)

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:33 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
I NEVER accused you of any thing.
You have stated that me lying is a plausible hypothesis/explanation.

That is an accusation...
Wow, you really are more BLINDED than even I had envisioned.

I NEVER stated any thing at all. What I did, however, and which you have still FAILED to SEE, was I just asked a truly OPEN clarifying question.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
When you do start answering My actual questions?
Maybe you should state them as yes/no questions? So there's no misunderstanding? ;)
But did you NOT imply previously something about from asking yes/no questions nothing can be justified and in fact the more one questions the less the justification will be found? Could this also imply more misunderstanding might come to light?

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
This is just more evidence.
Indeed. My deduction is evidence that I can deduce.
Yes, and I have deduced that you inevitably are extremely bad at deducing.

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
Through that type of reasoning, you are WRONG.
It's not reasoning. It's deduction. It's not wrong. It's how deduction works.
So, are you suggesting or saying that deduction is NEVER wrong, NEVER not valid, and NEVER not sound?

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:46 pm
Did you just "deduce" without any reason whatsoever?

Do you always deduce without any reason whatsoever?
Yes I did. I thought we established that I don't need reason for deduction?
But you did NOT establish that. You just said that. Can you SEE the difference.

Also, you may have established that you do not need reason for deduction, to you, and you may have actually proved this to be the case by and through your invalid deductions. But this has to be established FIRST.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm
You seem to think that by insisting that I am reasoning and not deducting that you are somehow going to force me into accepting your unjustified opinion.
Another completely and utterly WRONG and ABSURD assumption of YOURS.

You really do live in YOUR OWN very small, narrow, and little WORLD, am I right?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:55 pm
Don't do that with girls. It's illegal, OK?
Are you suggesting or saying that is NOT illegal to do it with boys?

(Whatever the "it" is that you are referring to.)

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
I have ALREADY shown how my answer is VALIDLY justified.
Liar. You have not done any such thing.
Yes I have.

Remember you said you missed it.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
Are you at all aware that; Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer?
Yes. They teach this in Physics.
Great. NOW, REMEMBER IT.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
By the way, does using the word "theory" mean that what you are saying is True, Right, and Correct, or is it just a "theory"?

Like with ALL "theories" when one LOOKS past the wrongness in them, then what IS actually True, Right, and Correct can be SEEN.
It's just a theory, but all theories are not made equal. Some theories are more wrong than others.
Perfect.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:19 pm
Some make fewer and less precise predictions than others. How do we measure the precision of predictions? With a coin!

A coin is only wrong 50% of the time. Some theories fare MUCH worse.
Some fare MUCH better. This is BECAUSE coins can NOT make predictions, on their own.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:19 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:13 pm
One day, hopefully, you to will LEARN how to do this. But at the current rate you are going I doubt it. But there is still hope for you yet. That is WHY I do NOT give up on you.
We'll see who's going to learn from whom ;)
But that has already been SHOWN, and PROVEN.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:43 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Yes I have.

Remember you said you missed it.
And then I found it and showed you that it's wrong.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Great. NOW, REMEMBER IT.
Never forgot it.

Did they teach you that if two observers look at the same thing - they can always agree on a description of its properties?

Aumann's agreement theorem...

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Some fare MUCH better. This is BECAUSE coins can NOT make predictions, on their own.
They can. 50% of the time they predict "Yes" and 50% of the time they predict "No".

For any and every "yes/no" question that you ask them.

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:33 pm
Wow, you really are more BLINDED than even I had envisioned.

I NEVER stated any thing at all. What I did, however, and which you have still FAILED to SEE, was I just asked a truly OPEN clarifying question.
You wanted to clarify if I was lying? By asking me if I was lying?

Have you heard of the liar's paradox?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
But did you NOT imply previously something about from asking yes/no questions nothing can be justified
Yes. And? Do you expect me to justify my yes/no answers?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
and in fact the more one questions the less the justification will be found? Could this also imply more misunderstanding might come to light?
Same question: Do you expect yes/no answers to be justified?

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Yes, and I have deduced that you inevitably are extremely bad at deducing.
Oh? What was wrong with my example?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
So, are you suggesting or saying that deduction is NEVER wrong, NEVER not valid, and NEVER not sound?
Why do you insist talking in generalities when we have a particular case on the table?

All humans are mortal.
Age is human.
Age is mortal.

Is this unsound?
Is this wrong?

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
But you did NOT establish that. You just said that. Can you SEE the difference.
First I established it. ThenI said it. If I hadn't established it I wouldn't said it.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Also, you may have established that you do not need reason for deduction, to you, and you may have actually proved this to be the case by and through your invalid deductions. But this has to be established FIRST.
I did establish it. That's why I said it.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Are you suggesting or saying that is NOT illegal to do it with boys?
It is also illegal, but boys will kick your ass. And you will learn rather quickly what it is that you shouldn't be doing ;)

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:43 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Yes I have.

Remember you said you missed it.
And then I found it and showed you that it's wrong.
Is that just what you BELIEVE to be the case?

If you have showed that "it" is wrong, WHEN and WHERE did you show this?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:43 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Great. NOW, REMEMBER IT.
Never forgot it.

Did they teach you that if two observers look at the same thing - they can always agree on a description of its properties?
Who is "they" referring to.

I have NOT been taught by any one most of the things that I say here. [/quote]

It is a plain old obvious FACT that Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. No one needs to be taught that. That can be obviously SEEN and KNOWN, without any outside influences.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:43 pm
Aumann's agreement theorem...
Great, another "theorem", which could be WRONG.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:43 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Some fare MUCH better. This is BECAUSE coins can NOT make predictions, on their own.
They can. 50% of the time they predict "Yes" and 50% of the time they predict "No".
How many times will it take before you UNDERSTAND. Coins can NOT and do NOT make predictions, on their own. You, human beings, put meaning onto sides of coins and then when the coin lands a certain way, YOU have already decided what that side will predict.

Can you SEE that it is YOU, who is ultimately making the prediction, and NOT the coin?

This can be easily PROVEN.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:43 pm
For any and every "yes/no" question that you ask them.
Do you really think it wise to be asking a coin, or any other inanimate object, any question at all?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am

Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Is that just what you BELIEVE to be the case?

If you have showed that "it" is wrong, WHEN and WHERE did you show this?
In this post...
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:39 pm
....
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
It is a plain old obvious FACT that Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. No one needs to be taught that. That can be obviously SEEN and KNOWN, without any outside influences.
We moved on from the observer and onto the fact that there are at least 8 billion observers/humans. And if every one of them thought everything is relative to themselves - we would have a really hard time agreeing on anything.

What Aumann's agreement theorem tells us is that with just yes/no questions you can figure out what other people mean. So that you can agree with them. If you want to...
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Great, another "theorem", which could be WRONG.
It's not. It's demonstrably valid and applicable.
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
How many times will it take before you UNDERSTAND. Coins can NOT and do NOT make predictions, on their own.
They do.

Given a standard distribution coins predict correctly 50% of the time.
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
You, human beings, put meaning onto sides of coins and then when the coin lands a certain way, YOU have already decided what that side will predict.
Nonsense. If the coin keeps predicting "No" but the correct answer keeps being "Yes". just swap the meaning around....

Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Can you SEE that it is YOU, who is ultimately making the prediction, and NOT the coin?
Can you see that you are unable to reason abstractly? And that I can implement the "coin" as any machine that answers yes/no probabilistically.
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
This can be easily PROVEN.
I am waiting for proof. In Mathematics please.
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Do you really think it wise to be asking a coin, or any other inanimate object, any question at all?
If you are wrong 90% of the time, then it's exceptionally wise to ask the coin instead.

A coin is only wrong 50% of the time.
Last edited by Logik on Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:19 am

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:33 pm
Wow, you really are more BLINDED than even I had envisioned.

I NEVER stated any thing at all. What I did, however, and which you have still FAILED to SEE, was I just asked a truly OPEN clarifying question.
You wanted to clarify if I was lying? By asking me if I was lying?
Have you heard of the liar's paradox?

I also asked you two other clarify questions with that one. So, you had three to choose from. Yet, like just about ALWAYS you NEVER answered the actual questions.

By the way I NEVER asked if you were lying. I asked COULD you be lying?

Also, notice you once again you put a question mark at the end of your sentence, but then the way you use words does NOT show that it is a question at all.

Maybe you are unsure if you are either asking a question or making a point. This could be due to the FACT that you BELIEVE your own ASSUMPTIONS are CORRECT, when obviously they are NOT.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
But did you NOT imply previously something about from asking yes/no questions nothing can be justified
Yes. And? Do you expect me to justify my yes/no answers?
No not at all. I already KNOW that you can NOT justify your answers. This is because you can NOT reason out what you deduce. You just make a deduction from nothing or absurdly wrong assumptions.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
and in fact the more one questions the less the justification will be found? Could this also imply more misunderstanding might come to light?
Same question: Do you expect yes/no answers to be justified?
No. You have already PROVEN that you can NOT do it.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Yes, and I have deduced that you inevitably are extremely bad at deducing.
Oh? What was wrong with my example?
For the reasons ALREADY given.

Did you miss those ones also?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
So, are you suggesting or saying that deduction is NEVER wrong, NEVER not valid, and NEVER not sound?
Why do you insist talking in generalities when we have a particular case on the table?
But I am NOT insisting talking in generalities. So, you have ONCE AGAIN made a truly WRONG assumption. if you did NOT notice. I just asked you a truly OPEN clarifying question, which you OBVIOUSLY failed to answer, ONCE AGAIN.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
All humans are mortal.
Age is human.
Age is mortal.

Is this unsound?
Yes, because the reasoning is WRONG.

Is this wrong?[/quote]

Yes, for the reasons GIVEN.

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
But you did NOT establish that. You just said that. Can you SEE the difference.
First I established it. ThenI said it. If I hadn't established it I wouldn't said it.

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:36 pm
Also, you may have established that you do not need reason for deduction, to you, and you may have actually proved this to be the case by and through your invalid deductions. But this has to be established FIRST.
I did establish it. That's why I said it.
But that reasoning is unsound.

Do you have any EVIDENCE of WHERE you, supposedly, said it?

Logik
Posts: 4048
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Logik » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:23 am

Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:19 am
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
All humans are mortal.
Age is human.
Age is mortal.

Is this unsound?
Yes, because the reasoning is WRONG.
It's not reasoning. It's deduction.
Maybe the reasoning is wrong, but the deduction is correct.

Perhaps you should give up wrong reasoning for correct deduction?

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:42 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Is that just what you BELIEVE to be the case?

If you have showed that "it" is wrong, WHEN and WHERE did you show this?
In this post...
Are you afraid to provide the so called EVIDENCE? Or, is there another reason WHY you NOT show WHERE and WHEN this supposedly took place?
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:39 pm
....
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
It is a plain old obvious FACT that Absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. No one needs to be taught that. That can be obviously SEEN and KNOWN, without any outside influences.
We moved on from the observer and onto the fact that there are at least 8 billion observers/humans. And if every one of them thought everything is relative to themselves - we would have a really hard time agreeing on anything.
Yet when I say; WHAT it IS that is in agreement with and by EVERY one, then that is what IS thee Truth, I am usually told; But we will never be in agreement.

Some people actually BELIEVE that it is just TO HARD to get EVERY one to agree on any thing.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
What Aumann's agreement theorem tells us is that with just yes/no questions you can figure out what other people mean. So that you can agree with them. If you want to...
Do you really NEED to be told/informed through some outside influence that with just yes/no questions you can figure out what other people mean, and, did you also NEED some outside influence before you KNEW that so that you can then agree with them, if you want to. ALL the people I know of have worked that out, all on their own, BEFORE they have reached adulthood.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Great, another "theorem", which could be WRONG.
It's not. It's demonstrably valid and applicable.
If it can NOT be and is NOT WRONG, then it is RIGHT. Full stop.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
How many times will it take before you UNDERSTAND. Coins can NOT and do NOT make predictions, on their own.
They do.
lol. You really can NOT see past maths, can you?

To UNDERSTAND the Universe that you exist in, maths will NOT suffice.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
You, human beings, put meaning onto sides of coins and then when the coin lands a certain way, YOU have already decided what that side will predict.
Nonsense. If the coin keeps predicting "No" but the correct answer keeps being "Yes". just swap the meaning around....
One again. COINS DO NOT PREDICT.

Human beings predict. Coins do NOT.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Can you SEE that it is YOU, who is ultimately making the prediction, and NOT the coin?
Can you see that you are unable to reason abstractly?
Perfect.

MORE evidence and MORE valid justification for my previous yes response.

SEE, I did NOT have to VALIDLY justify My 'yes' response BECAUSE you can, and did, just do it FOR Me.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
And that I can implement the "coin" as any machine that answers yes/no probabilistically.
And, as I have been saying inanimate objects do NOT predict. YOU do. Even here you just wrote that it is YOU who is 'implementing'.

By definition inanimate objects can NOT do any thing, on their own. What YOU say that can do, regarding predicting, it is in FACT YOU who is doing that, and NOT the inanimate object.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
This can be easily PROVEN.
I am waiting for proof. In Mathematics please.
Keep waiting. If you think "maths" is the answer to EVERY thing, then you are VERY SADLY MISTAKEN.

Also, are you NOT able to SEE and UNDERSTAND things, without maths?

SEE maths can be used to manipulate things in a way to SHOW an illusion of what IS actually Real and True. As can be proven within some of those so called "theories" that you use.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:04 am
Do you really think it wise to be asking a coin, or any other inanimate object, any question at all?
If you are wrong 90% of the time, then it's exceptionally wise to ask the coin instead.
If you really BELIEVE that is a WISE thing to do, then continue on doing it.
Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:13 am
A coin is only wrong 50% of the time.
Lol. If that is what you BELIEVE, then it MUST be True, correct?

Age
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time

Post by Age » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:43 am

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:23 am
Age wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:19 am
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:49 pm
All humans are mortal.
Age is human.
Age is mortal.

Is this unsound?
Yes, because the reasoning is WRONG.
It's not reasoning. It's deduction.
Maybe the reasoning is wrong, but the deduction is correct.

Perhaps you should give up wrong reasoning for correct deduction?
But the deduction is INCORRECT.

Look I have already through sound reasoning VALIDLY JUSTIFIED my yes response. You said that I could NOT do it. You even said that you were so sure that I could NOT do it that you would bet on it. But yet I have already done it.

So, is there anymore you want to add to this?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests