But does it answer the question?
Morality as Symmetry in Time
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
You get rid of the problem of dichotomy if you answer both at once. Instead of taking a "either/or" approach, a "both/and" works.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
So have you gotten rid of the problem of dichotomy?
I'll just keep turning your claims into yes/no dichotomies...
This is the epistemic problem of criterion. There is no way to fix this leaking bucket.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
What makes "us" 'human' is simply the word 'human'.
But what separates "us" human beings from all other animals is "we" are able to learn, understand, and reason anything. Although some other animals can obviously learn, understand, and reason, some things, only human beings, (that "we" know of), have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely every, and any, thing.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
Remember when you asked me "Who I am" and I said "Logik" and you said that it doesn't answer the question?
Why does 'human' answer the question "What makes us human?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
The decision problems in the above are as follows:
Can we learn?
Can we understand?
Can we reason?
Do we have the ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely every, and any, thing?
Every positive claim about reality can be turned into a binary question...
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
Naturally. That's the pragmatic approach - synthesize your own criteria for sufficiency/success.
Just don't expect anybody (philosophers especially) to agree with them. So if other people don't care about my criteria, why should they care about my justifications?
The mechanism by which I synthesize criteria is teleology. Purpose/Goals/Objectives etc.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
Actually Hegel/Fichte, the basic natural law of Aquinas relative to Male/Female sexuality, and ancient but obscure doctrines of Egyptian Hermeticism necessitate a process of synthesis inherent within the foundations of logic, with logic strictly being a form of "measurement".Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 9:05 amNaturally. That's the pragmatic approach - synthesize your own criteria for sufficiency/success.
Just don't expect anybody (philosophers especially) to agree with them. So if other people don't care about my criteria, why should they care about my justifications?
The mechanism by which I synthesize criteria is teleology. Purpose/Goals/Objectives etc.
1. A contradiction is observed where symmetrical phenomena are inherently divided or "opposing". This leads to a problem of "choice". I make a decision, follow through, and another decision stems from it in the form of "branching". The course of action divides, at minimum into a dichotomy.
2. This dichotomy observes that a unified route effectively comes to an ends. It lacks structural integrity and faces a void effectively. The "decision" is unable to maintain its own structure and effectively "dissolves" into a choice with the choice representing a dichotomy. One course of action cannot be maintained; hence it breaks apart into further courses of action.
3. The "choice" dichotomy is a result of another course of action effectively trying to maintain itself in light of an absence of order. The course of action splits into potential courses of action.
***** Time Constraint, will finish later.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
No I do not remember saying that. What thread was it in and on what page?
Great question. Because what we tell ourselves is, to us, thee Truth.
What we tell ourselves may not necessarily be thee Truth but to us, the one we are telling it to, it is thee Truth.
What do you mean by 'decision problems' in the above?
What 'problems' are there?
To me,
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Can every negative claim about reality also be turned into a binary question?
And, what is a 'binary question'?
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem
A decision problem has only two possible outputs (yes or no) on any input.
In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision problem is a problem that can be posed as a yes-no question of the input values.
The very fact that you have given an answer means that you have made a decision! That you have decided yes instead of no is immaterial - what is significant is that you have decided. 4 times!
You have made 4 choices.
I am not sure. Give me an example of a negative claim and we can do an experiment to see if it can be turned into a binary question.
A decision. See above diagram.
That the answer is "yes/no" is immaterial. That the answer is Boolean makes all the difference in the world.
All of these are Boolean propositions:
Is X true or false?
Is X right or wrong?
Is X correct or incorrect?
Is X left or right?
Is X up or down?
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
So what?Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:44 amhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problemdecision-theory.pngA decision problem has only two possible outputs (yes or no) on any input.
In computability theory and computational complexity theory, a decision problem is a problem that can be posed as a yes-no question of the input values.
The very fact that you have given an answer means that you have made a decision! That you have decided yes instead of no is immaterial - what is significant is that you have decided. 4 times!
You have made 4 choices.
I am not sure. Give me an example of a negative claim and we can do an experiment to see if it can be turned into a binary question.
A decision. See above diagram.
That the answer is "yes/no" is immaterial. That the answer is Boolean makes all the difference in the world.
All of these are Boolean propositions:
Is X true or false?
Is X right or wrong?
Is X correct or incorrect?
Is X left or right?
Is X up or down?
What is the actual problem here?
What is a "decision" problem?
I do NOT see any problem here.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
The "problem" is that you can't justify your answer.
If you were trying to answer the question "Can we reason?" and you didn't know HOW to get the answer, then you can simply flip a coin. That's a 50% chance of getting the right answer by pure luck alone!
The reason this is important is because it's an objective standard for certainty.
Because you are more certain than a coin in answering "Yes" then I am inferring that you have some process (algorithm) for deciding that the answer is "Yes".
But if I were to ask you "How did you reach this conclusion?" you are going to have a very hard time explaining it.
Don't focus too much on the word "problem" as it has negative connotations.
Because I can turn every positive statement into a yes/no question which you can't justify, the "problem" is that "Justified True Belief" is impossible.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
No it can NOT.
Tell me HOW a coin tells and/or gives you the answer to questions?
Yes that is what I did.
I am NOT sure where you are getting your coins from, but from the ones I have seen NONE of them are able to provide answers to questions. Let alone being certain nor uncertain about answers.
I hope I am NOT 'more' certain that a coin because ALL the coins that I know of have absolutely NO certainty at all.
But the word 'problem' does NOT have negative connotations at all, to me.
Why do you think/believe the word 'problem' has negative connotations?
Yes I have.
How do you KNOW this?
What lead you to make this ASSUMPTION?
Hang on. You reached your OWN conclusion, without even attempting some thing yet.
Why would you jump to such a conclusion, so quickly?
Do you THINK you KNOW all the answers, already?
Did you reason out that things can NOT be easily stated in words/logic?
Also, that is NOT a 'problem' at all, to me.
You have yet to SHOW any problem here whatsoever, from my perspective. As I stated earlier, I do NOT see a problem anywhere here.
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
Heads - Yes.
Tails - No.
I am not sure where you get your coins from, but my coins are two-sided.
Does God exist?
Heads - Yes
Tails - No
There! The question has been answered.
Now comes the next question: Is the answer correct?
Well, it's another yes/no question so.... flip a coin again!
Coin will give you 50% certainty. Every time!
Re: Morality as Symmetry in Time
But that is YOUR decision. Not the coins.
That is YOU telling your-self the answer. The coin, literally, does NOT tell you any thing.
There YOU DECIDED AGAIN.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:12 pmI am not sure where you get your coins from, but my coins are two-sided.
Does God exist?
Head/Tails = Yes/No = True/False
Has it? What was/is thee answer?
You sure get your answers a funny way, from my perspective.