The 13 Prime Directive Laws of Reason (original/incomplete)

[Greta]

Greta, your post is rich with acumen and insight. Couldn’t we have a separate thread in its own right on this?

Sure. I'm too lazy to start a new thread about it but if you are keen to lift any of that post for an OP, by all means :)

I know you have a point Greta, I am just failing to see it.

Actually there was no point and I meant what I said. I'm increasingly focusing on writing at home rather than online interactions. I find I receive far more agreement that way :)

[Eodnhoj7]

Sure. I'm too lazy to start a new thread about it but if you are keen to lift any of that post for an OP, by all means

I know you have a point Greta, I am just failing to see it.

Actually there was no point and I meant what I said. I'm increasingly focusing on writing at home rather than online interactions. I find I receive far more agreement that way

I just do both...writing at home has not been common as of late due to a variety of factors, but I am looking at getting back to it.

[TimeSeeker]

How do you address tackle the symbol-grounding problem and problems of reduction when it comes to asserting the truthfulness of your pre-suppositions?

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

So, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently...And you know, a reoccurring concept in this show is in fact something called the 'prime directive'; This is the only other time that I have ever heard this term ever being used - and Google tends to agree, as that is the only thing which comes up; Some might consider this 'patchwork plagiarism.'

On an off note...Frankly, I've discovered that you talk like a 'star trek' character, in general; Since the star trek universe doesn't rely on much actual science, the conversations often involve a bunch of made-up lingo and joining a bunch of vaguely intelligible-sounding mumbles together to create the illusion that something is actually being said, in a way that at least makes sense to the context of the fictional character. Of course, when we, the viewer, think about what's being said - it just doesn't make any sense.

Now, I'm not suggesting you're ripping off all of your ideas from star trek - but it has lead me down this sort of rabbit hole. The way that you describe ideas, is like that of a fictional character in a show describing a junk science created for that show. This would be a good single example of what I'm talking about.

[TimeSeeker]

So, I started watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, recently...And you know, a reoccurring concept in this show is in fact something called the 'prime directive'; This is the only other time that I have ever heard this term ever being used - and Google tends to agree, as that is the only thing which comes up; Some might consider this 'patchwork plagiarism.'

On an off note...Frankly, I've discovered that you talk like a 'star trek' character, in general; Since the star trek universe doesn't rely on much actual science, the conversations often involve a bunch of made-up lingo and joining a bunch of vaguely intelligible-sounding mumbles together to create the illusion that something is actually being said, in a way that at least makes sense to the context of the fictional character. Of course, when we, the viewer, think about what's being said - it just doesn't make any sense.

Now, I'm not suggesting you're ripping off all of your ideas from star trek - but it has lead me down this sort of rabbit hole. The way that you describe ideas, is like that of a fictional character in a show describing a junk science created for that show. This would be a good single example of what I'm talking about.

Have you considered that your own expectations are flawed? https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HLqWn5L ... -distances

[RCSaunders]

It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing.

You have made the common mistake of confusing metaphysical existence and psychological existence. No concept, abstraction, or principle exists metaphysically. Rules of logic, like rules of mathematics, to not exist, as physical existents do, independently of the human minds that think them.

Randy

[TimeSeeker]

The ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.

The Curry-Howard isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!

http://www.informatik.uni-marburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf

[Eodnhoj7]

It contradicts itself as the law of excluded middle must be observed as either existing or not existing.

You have made the common mistake of confusing metaphysical existence and psychological existence. No concept, abstraction, or principle exists metaphysically. Rules of logic, like rules of mathematics, to not exist, as physical existents do, independently of the human minds that think them.

Randy

Considering all abstract and physical phenomenon stem from "limit" with the universal limits defining all phenomena through the line, point and circle as the base triad we cannot argue mind and matter are seperate because of there foundations.

[Eodnhoj7]

The ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.

The Curry-Howard isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!

http://www.informatik.uni-marburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf

It appears we are on the same page then... are you arguing, in loose terms, proof is the argument?

[TimeSeeker]

The ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.

The Curry-Howard isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!

http://www.informatik.uni-marburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf

It appears we are on the same page then... are you arguing, in loose terms, proof is the argument?

Yes. And not just loosely

The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).

Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms. ‘Living’ proof.

[Eodnhoj7]

The ‘law’ of excluded middle is a blunder. It stands in the way of intuitionistic logic and complex computation/deduction.

The Curry-Howard isomorphism shows there is a 1:1 relationships between deductive logic and proofs defined in Lambda calculus (e.g general purpose computation!). Algorithms!

http://www.informatik.uni-marburg.de/~k ... howard.pdf

It appears we are on the same page then... are you arguing, in loose terms, proof is the argument?

Yes. And not just loosely

The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).

Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms.

lol...welcome brother!

[TimeSeeker]

It appears we are on the same page then... are you arguing, in loose terms, proof is the argument?

Yes. And not just loosely

The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).

Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms.

lol...welcome brother!

I can’t claim take any credit. My grandmother always said “The proof is in the pudding!”.

Turns out she was right.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes. And not just loosely

The Mathematical proof IS the argument.
And mathematical proofs compute (if realized in practice).

Mathematical Proofs are working programs. Software. Algorithms.

lol...welcome brother!

I can’t claim take any credit. My grandmother always said “The proof is in the pudding!”.

Turns out she was right.

The question of proof, as having a foundation of logic, effectively requires a symmetry between the subjective state of the observer and the proof itself, hence proof is merely a connection between objectivity and subjectivity and provides a foundation for consciousness.

In these respects we are left with a circulation between the subjective and objective that has an objective element to reason stemming from the foundations of the limit of the circle.

[RCSaunders]

Considering all abstract and physical phenomenon stem from "limit" ...

A "limit" is a math concept and only pertains to some physical phenomena. For example, they have no meaning for phenomena described by fractals. Mathematics itself, like language is only a method invented by the human mind, and also has no existence (or meaning) independent of human consciousness.

Until you understand the difference between the "man-made" and the metaphysical I do not think you can make much progress in philosophy.

Randy

[TimeSeeker]

The question of proof, as having a foundation of logic, effectively requires a symmetry between the subjective state of the observer and the proof itself, hence proof is merely a connection between objectivity and subjectivity and provides a foundation for consciousness.

In these respects we are left with a circulation between the subjective and objective that has an objective element to reason stemming from the foundations of the limit of the circle.

Broadly - yes. But the framework of logic itself tells us nothing except that the theory is internally consistent (with the axioms).

Logic/mathematics just calculates consequences. It says nothing of whether the internal structure of logic itself corresponds to reality in any way.
So IF one is to turn the theory into a real, physical machine (ignoring manufacturing imperfections for the moment) then it's reasonable to believe that the machine will behave in approximately the same manner as the logic/mathematics does in theory.

This is the notion of "Realization" in systems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realization_(systems)
This is true in the context of Constructivist epistemology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology )

Either way - Mathematics allows us to create models. Their ability to predict real-world events is a separate matter.

Mathematics is just another language. It is very easy to begin describing things in Mathematics which don't correspond to reality in any meaningful or useful way.