The Continuum Concept in Practice

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

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Every time I apply the 'continuum' concept there is a lot of opposition in the way I had applied the continuum concept.

What I did is not typical [common sense] but I believe it is logical and valid on a rational and philosophical basis.

Here is some definition of the term 'continuum';
  • Continuum:
    : a range or series of things that are slightly different from each other and that exist between two different possibilities
    His motives for volunteering lie somewhere on the continuum between charitable and self-serving.
    a continuum of temperatures ranging from very cold to very hot
    https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/continuum
In the case of a mixing black and white there is a continuum of greyness from 1% to 99%.

Thus the continuum of greyness is;
100% grey is 50% black and 50% white.
10% grey is 90% white and 10% black.
90% grey is 90% black and 10% white.

Similarly in mixing black and white,
100% blackness is 100% black
90% blackness is 90% black and 10% white.
50% blackness is 50% black and 50% white.
10% blackness is 10% black and 90% white.

We can apply the above formula for 'whiteness'.

Now 'good' vs 'evil' are in contrasting opposites just like black vs white.
100% goodness is 100% good
90% goodness is 90% good and 10% evil.
50% goodness is 50% good and 50% evil.
10% goodness is 10% good and 90% evil.

So,
100% evilness is 100% evil
90% evilness is 90% evil and 10% good.
50% evilness is 50% evil and 50% good.
10% evilness is 10% evil and 90% good.

The point is human nature is such that all humans are programmed with potential of 'good' and 'evil' within their DNA.
For example, regardless how we condemned Hitler is evil to the hilt, there is nevertheless some good within him relatively.

I have often apply the above in moral discussions.

For example,
a person is said to be 90% good,
but within the associated complementarity of good and evil,
I can also said the person is 10% evil.
The justification is, any person recognized as very good, i.e. say 90% good is still capable of committing evil in various forms.

Another example is the complementarity of fact vs non-fact.
What is a fact is a claim conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The credibility of a fact is conditioned upon the credibility of the specific FSK.
Thus,
100% fact is 100% factual [highly credible FSK]
90% fact is 90% factual and 10% non-fact.
50% fact is 50% factual and 50% non-fact.
10% fact is 10% factual and 90% non-fact [i.e. of the lowest credibility].

In this case, I can state the divine claims can be 'facts' but they are merely 5%-fact or 1%-fact.
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.

Note Richard Dawkins used the same concept in his Belief-in-God scale, i.e.
If a theist belief in God is rated from 1 [belief] to 7 [non-belief] then his non-belief is rated 6/7.

So based on the concept of a continuum, is there are problem in my claim,
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.

It may seem weird to many, but I believe the claim is very logical, rational and valid.
The continuum concept is very useful for moral deliberations.

Views?

ETA:
Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum
viewtopic.php?t=40972
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Fri Oct 13, 2023 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Walker »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 6:08 am
Views?
Continuity glues together each fragmented moment to create meaning. Continuity causes breath to be ignored as the definitive dividing point of reality and creator of moments. Timepieces replaced breath as the go-to time fragmenter. Paint mixers add a drop of the blackest black to get a gallon of the whitest white.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by FlashDangerpants »

What you have been called on isn't so much the application of the contiuum concept, although that is indeed quite absurd. It is your habit of assigning numbers to things that you cannot measure and calling these fraudulent numbers the basis of a science.

You want us to believe you can measure the badness of drowning a cat versus the badness of beheading a chicken, and you randomly claim a 5% margin of error for the numbers you are completely pulling out of your arse.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:30 am What you have been called on isn't so much the application of the contiuum concept, although that is indeed quite absurd. It is your habit of assigning numbers to things that you cannot measure and calling these fraudulent numbers the basis of a science.

You want us to believe you can measure the badness of drowning a cat versus the badness of beheading a chicken, and you randomly claim a 5% margin of error for the numbers you are completely pulling out of your arse.
This sort of exercises are estimates and thus the need to note its limitations.

You are very ignorant on this.
It is applied everywhere in practice.
It is how the mechanism of pricing based on supply and demands works in economics.

In laws, different penalties are assigned to different types of crime.

As stated above, even Dawkins used such an approach,
Note Richard Dawkins used the same concept in his Belief-in-God scale, i.e.
If a theist belief in God is rated from 1 [belief] to 7 [non-belief] then his non-belief is rated 6/7.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6207
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:44 am
FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:30 am What you have been called on isn't so much the application of the contiuum concept, although that is indeed quite absurd. It is your habit of assigning numbers to things that you cannot measure and calling these fraudulent numbers the basis of a science.

You want us to believe you can measure the badness of drowning a cat versus the badness of beheading a chicken, and you randomly claim a 5% margin of error for the numbers you are completely pulling out of your arse.
This sort of exercises are estimates and thus the need to note its limitations.
What are you estimating? If I estimate that my journey to work will take 30 minutes and cover 4 miles I am making two judgments that can be compared to actual measurements.

If I estimate that your morality FSK is 3% usable concepts and 40% empty boasting about nothing, and 57% utter bullshit how do you measure that it is actually 90% as good as science?

You can't because all your numbers are lies.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 6:08 am Thus,
100% fact is 100% factual [highly credible FSK]
90% fact is 90% factual and 10% non-fact.
50% fact is 50% factual and 50% non-fact.
10% fact is 10% factual and 90% non-fact [i.e. of the lowest credibility].

In this case, I can state the divine claims can be 'facts' but they are merely 5%-fact or 1%-fact.
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.

Note Richard Dawkins used the same concept in his Belief-in-God scale, i.e.
If a theist belief in God is rated from 1 [belief] to 7 [non-belief] then his non-belief is rated 6/7.

So based on the concept of a continuum, is there are problem in my claim,
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.

It may seem weird to many, but I believe the claim is very logical, rational and valid.
The continuum concept is very useful for moral deliberations.

Views?
AS explained elsewhere to this person, it doesn't end up 5 or 10 or 50 percent fact because even if some of the support for the position is based on, let's say, sociological research (into the effects of some behavior, say), the portion of the 'moral fact' that is value based controls the entire proposal. Because in the end the entire thing comes down to a value judgment, regardless of how much science or deduction involved. That effects that one can track are part of the argument does nothing when the ENTIRE evaluation of the proposal hinges on a value judgment. None of the science or other kinds of knowledge matters in the least since it will all hinge on the value judgment part.

At some point you have to decide if the effects are bad or not. We can certainly come into the realm with effects, but not with that value judgment. To decide that effects are good or bad requires that value judgment. And since we cannnot claim that part of the argument or proposal is to any degree knowledge the conclusion is not a fact.

Credibility is not a criterion for value judgments. If you and someone else share the same values, then you may be able to make an argument they can be sympethatic to. Oh, I didn't realize this behavior let to X and since I also share value Y and with you I also think it is bad.

The moment you are dealing with someone with fundamentally different values you realize that this has nothing to do with credibility at all. It has to do with taste/preference/value.

But we'll see this same shit in years to come.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Thu Oct 12, 2023 2:57 pm There's nothing to uncover, of course. It's laughable nonsense, as you've been saying for ages, as is the mystical 'principle of continuum'.
You are insulting your own intelligence re the Principle of Continuum which is inherent in all variables of reality.
How can you ignore the normal distribution of say human variables, e.g. heights of all human, weight, and so on, even on life itself.

The moment you are born you are driven to death,
If you live up to say 100,
you can put 100% dead at 100 years old,
then you can work backward with a continuum of % of dying throughout the ages of your life to 0.001% dying at birth.
You can do the reverse for "being alive".

Tell me why the above reality is "laughable nonsense".
It you cannot comprehend the above, that is your "laughable nonsense."
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:30 am It is your habit of assigning numbers to things that you cannot measure and calling these fraudulent numbers the basis of a science.
Where did you get the silly notion that measurements map to numbers? A simple yes/no answer is a measurement in the frame of information theory.
It's the measurement of 1 bit of information.

If you wish to cure your ignorance then read something informal: https://www.amazon.com/How-Measure-Anyt ... 1118539273

And if you wish to cure your formal ignorance read something on measure theory.

In any monadic calculus you can map 0 to "Nothing" and any other value to Just the value.
So you have your categoricals {Nothing, Just(anything)}

Code: Select all

fn divide(x: Decimal, y: Decimal) -> Maybe<Decimal> {
    if y == 0 { return Nothing }
    else { return Just(x / y) }
}
// divide(1.0, 4.0) -> returns Just(0.25)
// divide(3.0, 0.0) -> returns Nothing
Last edited by Skepdick on Fri Oct 13, 2023 8:40 am, edited 4 times in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Skepdick »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 8:59 am You can't because all your numbers are lies.
That requires proof. A mapping function from numbers to {True, False}

If your mapping function is just a map to {False} that's not even wrong.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Critical Advantage of the Continuum

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Btw, the critical advantage of adopting the Continuum approach is the assurance of Completeness Control so that the 'illusionists'* do not eel away. *including the philosophical-realists like PH and the like.

It is typical for theists to claim their God is transcendent beyond ordinary knowledge from a BOTTOM-UP approach. Therefrom they will give all sorts of excuses to get away with their claims and there is no way for rational argument because God is transcendent.

The Continuum approach is like putting the whole issue within an enclosed net e.g. in fishing where there is no possibility of escape for the enclosed fishes.

When we consider all the variables within reality [all there is] as conditioned their specific human-based FSK, we are putting all issue within a common denominator.
The most effective and appropriate denominator to handle theism is to use the 'objectivity' basis. One can use 'subjectivity' but that is not the norm within the issues related to theism.

Thus when we put Science as the standard at 100% [as demonstrated] and theological FSK at 0.001% [as demonstrated], there is no place for it to run within that continuum, i.e. putting theism in its place as within objectivity but illusory.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skepdick
Posts: 14347
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Critical Advantage of the Continuum

Post by Skepdick »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:06 am It is typical for theists to claim their God is transcendent beyond ordinary knowledge from a BOTTOM-UP approach.
Knowledge is neither 100% bottom up/0%-top down, nor 100% top-down/0% bottom-up.

Laws of nature are neither 100% mind-dependent nor 0% mind-dependent. You are going from pillar to post. Absolute to absolute.

There's no reference frame with a fixed point.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Critical Advantage of the Continuum

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:08 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:06 am It is typical for theists to claim their God is transcendent beyond ordinary knowledge from a BOTTOM-UP approach.
Knowledge is neither 100% bottom up/0%-top down, nor 100% top-down/0% bottom-up.

Laws of nature are neither 100% mind-dependent nor 0% mind-dependent. You are going from pillar to post. Absolute to absolute.

There's no reference frame with a fixed point.
For the theists and philosophical realists [PH & like] they are claiming their ultimate reality with 100% certainty.
Any variations from the above would entail human participation, thus is ANTI-theism or ANTI-p-realism.

Personally, I am an ANTI-philosophical_realist and a non-theist, so I suspend judgment from absolute certainty, i.e. I will claim at least it is either 0.0001% to the other end at most of 99.999%
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Atla »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 6:08 am Every time I apply the 'continuum' concept there is a lot of opposition in the way I had applied the continuum concept.

What I did is not typical [common sense] but I believe it is logical and valid on a rational and philosophical basis.

Here is some definition of the term 'continuum';
  • Continuum:
    : a range or series of things that are slightly different from each other and that exist between two different possibilities
    His motives for volunteering lie somewhere on the continuum between charitable and self-serving.
    a continuum of temperatures ranging from very cold to very hot
    https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/continuum
In the case of a mixing black and white there is a continuum of greyness from 1% to 99%.

Thus the continuum of greyness is;
100% grey is 50% black and 50% white.
10% grey is 90% white and 10% black.
90% grey is 90% black and 10% white.

Similarly in mixing black and white,
100% blackness is 100% black
90% blackness is 90% black and 10% white.
50% blackness is 50% black and 50% white.
10% blackness is 10% black and 90% white.

We can apply the above formula for 'whiteness'.

Now 'good' vs 'evil' are in contrasting opposites just like black vs white.
100% goodness is 100% good
90% goodness is 90% good and 10% evil.
50% goodness is 50% good and 50% evil.
10% goodness is 10% good and 90% evil.

So,
100% evilness is 100% evil
90% evilness is 90% evil and 10% good.
50% evilness is 50% evil and 50% good.
10% evilness is 10% evil and 90% good.

The point is human nature is such that all humans are programmed with potential of 'good' and 'evil' within their DNA.
For example, regardless how we condemned Hitler is evil to the hilt, there is nevertheless some good within him relatively.

I have often apply the above in moral discussions.

For example,
a person is said to be 90% good,
but within the associated complementarity of good and evil,
I can also said the person is 10% evil.
The justification is, any person recognized as very good, i.e. say 90% good is still capable of committing evil in various forms.

Another example is the complementarity of fact vs non-fact.
What is a fact is a claim conditioned upon a specific FSK.
The credibility of a fact is conditioned upon the credibility of the specific FSK.
Thus,
100% fact is 100% factual [highly credible FSK]
90% fact is 90% factual and 10% non-fact.
50% fact is 50% factual and 50% non-fact.
10% fact is 10% factual and 90% non-fact [i.e. of the lowest credibility].

In this case, I can state the divine claims can be 'facts' but they are merely 5%-fact or 1%-fact.
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.

Note Richard Dawkins used the same concept in his Belief-in-God scale, i.e.
If a theist belief in God is rated from 1 [belief] to 7 [non-belief] then his non-belief is rated 6/7.

So based on the concept of a continuum, is there are problem in my claim,
Therefore there can be divine moral facts but they are at best 1-5% fact or 1-5% credibility.

It may seem weird to many, but I believe the claim is very logical, rational and valid.
The continuum concept is very useful for moral deliberations.

Views?

ETA:
Morality: Objectivity on a Continuum
viewtopic.php?t=40972
Objective reality is by definition not on a continuum, it's an absolute.

We can only put human objectivity vs human subjectivity on a continuum.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Iwannaplato »

Atla wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:53 am Objective reality is by definition not on a continuum, it's an absolute.

We can only put human objectivity vs human subjectivity on a continuum.
Also problematic for him is that one terrible step in an argument or justification of a conclusion can lead to 0 objectivity. He doesn't get this. If there are ten steps in an argument and 9 of them are objective or objectively arrived at subconclusions, and the last step is ridiculous. The conclusion of that process is not 90% objective 10% subjective. The whole thing gets undermined. Or even if he gives it a .00001 percent objective rating, this is a confusion. I could accept a subjective step in the argument possibly not undermining the whole thing, but something that has no justification or is randomly subjective like 'because I am the legitimate owner of the universe' it doesn't matter how objective the other steps in the argument/justification are objective.

If I bake a pie and it's 99% excellent ingredients and I even follow an excellent recipe, but it's got 1% arsenic in it, it's not a good pie unless my intent is to kill.

It's 100% a bad pie.

And if someone wants to argue 'but maybe the intent was to kill', well then it's 100% a good pie for those purposes. The good ingredients just make it more insidious and tasty.
Atla
Posts: 6607
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Continuum Concept in Practice

Post by Atla »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2023 7:53 am
Atla wrote: Sat Oct 14, 2023 6:53 am Objective reality is by definition not on a continuum, it's an absolute.

We can only put human objectivity vs human subjectivity on a continuum.
Also problematic for him is that one terrible step in an argument or justification of a conclusion can lead to 0 objectivity. He doesn't get this. If there are ten steps in an argument and 9 of them are objective or objectively arrived at subconclusions, and the last step is ridiculous. The conclusion of that process is not 90% objective 10% subjective. The whole thing gets undermined. Or even if he gives it a .00001 percent objective rating, this is a confusion. I could accept a subjective step in the argument possibly not undermining the whole thing, but something that has no justification or is randomly subjective like 'because I am the legitimate owner of the universe' it doesn't matter how objective the other steps in the argument/justification are objective.

If I bake a pie and it's 99% excellent ingredients and I even follow an excellent recipe, but it's got 1% arsenic in it, it's not a good pie unless my intent is to kill.

It's 100% a bad pie.

And if someone wants to argue 'but maybe the intent was to kill', well then it's 100% a good pie for those purposes. The good ingredients just make it more insidious and tasty.
Hmm so if I make 9 perfectly good steps, and the 10th step is something random and wrong like "VA owns me 1 million dollars", then I'm still 90% right and VA still owns me 900k?

Hmmmmmmm, for the first time ever, I feel.. compelled.. to wholeheartedly adopt VA's philosophy.
Post Reply