Tell me what you believe.

Author: Wrick-It-Ralph

Posts

Total: 353
#31
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
I can't think of anything that one can prove without relying on a=a -> true at some point.
If your computer is oriented { positioned } in specific way, the first "a" on left is not equal to the other one on right right, because, its lies on a differrent longitude.

If computer is turned 90 degrees, their equal, in that both are on same longitude, but no longer on same latitude.

By the way, if you havent yet figured this out, I'm presenting  a chewing-gum mind-game.  :---(



#32
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@mustardness
I was thinking about how you prove 1+4=2+3.
That simplifies to 5=5, which needs the a=a rule to formally know is true.
#33
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
That simplifies to 5=5, which needs the a=a rule to formally know is true.
Kieth, sorry I never stated that I agree with your assessment. Iover looked that key detail of acknowledgement --aka "giving credit where credit is due'---.

However, that said, how many times have I seen that 1 + 1 = 2 and that is true numerically speaking but not in at least synergetically geometric way.

1 2D triangle + 1 2D triangle may equal 4 2D triangles of the same size via synergy.

3 angles of triangle + 3 angles of triangle synergetically may equal 12 angles of 3D tetra{4}hedron.

This is, of course, old news, since Ive posted that info in many various threads at DDO and DArt .



Topic's author
#34
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
@TheRealNihilist
You don't get to be skeptical about a bachelor.  It's true by definition.  That is unhealthy skepticism.  If he fits the definition, then it's automatically true. 
Topic's author
#35
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
@TheRealNihilist
You called it a descriptive truth, like that diminishes it.  I don't see it that way.  I think descriptive truths are more sound because we can actually know they're true as opposed to a prescriptive truth which uses a descriptive truth as it's foundation 

Topic's author
#36
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
@keithprosser
@TheRealNihilist
The reason for the rule a=a is that it can be replaced by ,'true'   --keithprosser

See.  He knows what I'm talking about. 

When you use propositional logic, A = A  will turn into a repeating loop when you try to consolidate it with other logic and that means that it becomes:

A = T.   In this case  T = true.  If you construct what's called a truth table for this.  It will show you that A = A  is always true. This is why we have the law of Identity. 
Topic's author
#37
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
So your point is someone started a similar topic to this one before?  

Okay, I agree.  What's your point? 

The car was invented into two places at once as well. 


#38
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I think the laws of logic are intended to express how people think naturally.  That is to say Aristotle thought that we are wired up with an instinct that a=a and things are either true or false.  
Aristotle thought he was making the process of thinking explicit.   By using his system of symbols and rules one would reach the same conclusion as one would by thinking.   Whether that conclusion matches what happens in reality is something else to worry about.


Topic's author
#39
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@keithprosser
Good point.  I forget which philosopher said it.  But there is a theory that logic is meant specifically for us and our reality and so it can be valid in our human realm and anything outside of that realm is not logic and we cannot have knowledge of it nor can the metaphysical knowledge affect us.  So by that logic, our logic can be trusted. 

I'll have to look up the philosopher.  He's a famous one, I'm just bad with names. 
#40
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Yes tautology exists. That was sort of my point.
#41
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@keithprosser
@Wrick-It-Ralph
So your point is someone started a similar topic to this one before?
I believe that is correct and you believe I am correct.  Win/Win. Give them both a Teddy bear.

Whether that conclusion matches what happens in reality is something else to worry about.
1 + 1 = 4 synergetically as does 3 + 3 = 12

Operation of 1{ 1 }, 2 { 1 1 }, 3{ 1 1 1 } is an orderly sequence and may, or may not be a logical sequence?

A logic board{ Mac } = mother board { PC }?  Well the spelling is diffferrent and the parts are partially differrent.

So there not the same yet their both logical.  Kieth{ K }, SM{ S }, M-tard{ M }, Omar{ O } are each logical, and human, yet they are also not equal on all scales of existence.







Topic's author
#42
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
1 + 1 = 4 synergetically as does 3 + 3 = 12

Operation of 1{ 1 }, 2 { 1 1 }, 3{ 1 1 1 } is an orderly sequence and may, or may not be a logical sequence?

A logic board{ Mac } = mother board { PC }?  Well the spelling is diffferrent and the parts are partially differrent.

So there not the same yet their both logical.  Kieth{ K }, SM{ S }, M-tard{ M }, Omar{ O } are each logical, and human, yet they are also not equal on all scales of existence.

All of this seems true, but what are you implying?  

What does scales of existence mean? 

Just because a thought process is logical doesn't mean it exists. 
#43
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
What does scales of existence mean?
Your kidding. Yes?

"Scales of existence" was in reference to  --in context of--  the humans line of text, but we can apply th phrase to any two or more things that the same in some ways and not in others.

Scales of size

Scales of weight { mass }

Scales of spin

Scales of color

Scales of human species as not same as scales of fish or bears as yes their both on the same scales of being a biologic, but not the same scales of species.

My guess is that ego will place a mental block to all of my above just as you do with 99% of what Ive stated.

Dude, you really need to learn how to place your ego to side.





Topic's author
#44
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
Your kidding. Yes?

"Scales of existence" was in reference to  --in context of--  the humans line of text, but we can apply th phrase to any two or more things that the same in some ways and not in others.

Scales of size

Scales of weight { mass }

Scales of spin

Scales of color

Scales of human species as not same as scales of fish or bears as yes their both on the same scales of being a biologic, but not the same scales of species.

My guess is that ego will place a mental block to all of my above just as you do with 99% of what Ive stated.

Dude, you really need to learn how to place your ego to side.

Oh that's rich.  You act dumbfounded that I didn't think your incoherent doubletalk was obvious and then insult me for my ego.  Ironic. 

Answer this question. 

Do you believe that mustardness is a real existing quality of mustard?  when I say exist.  I mean actual existence.
#45
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Also we could replace the word "scales" with degrees.

"Scales of existence" was in reference to  --in context of--  the humans line of text, but we can apply th phrase to any two or more things that the same in some ways and not in others.

Degrees of size

Degrees of weight { mass }

Degrees of spin

Degrees of color

Degrees of human species as not same as scales of fish or bears as yes their both on the same scales of being a biologic, but not the same scales of species.

Degrees of complexity etc

Topic's author
#46
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I believe morality to be subjective if that answers your question.

Can I jump on this?


I think morality comes primarily from evolution 

Would you call that subjective? 


Topic's author
#47
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness

1 2D triangle + 1 2D triangle may equal 4 2D triangles of the same size via synergy.

3 angles of triangle + 3 angles of triangle synergetically may equal 12 angles of 3D tetra{4}hedron.
Wouldn't that just be a different form of math?  

Technically, the 1 + 1 = 2 example uses arithmetic.

The math you're doing would be geometry and would have to be formatted into arithmetic first to be used properly. 

For instance, how are you adding the Triangles? 

Am I adding them by Quantity? 

By Total Area? 

Am I overlapping them for Hue? 

Just putting Triangle + Triangle would basically be a type of math you're making correct? 


Also, I'm not sure how 2 triangles equals 4 triangles of the same size.  Do you mean the same size as each other? or the Same size as the two previous triangles? 

#48
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I think morality comes primarily from evolution 

Would you call that subjective? 
Human beings disagree on what is moral. Both by region and by generation. That is subjective by definition.
Topic's author
#49
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
What if I told you that not everything people call a moral is a moral and if you strip the equivocations to get to the core you end up with objective morality? 

#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I would require a demonstration be for I could offer you wrote belief.
Topic's author
#51
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Sure so all of our moral judgements are initially based of cues we receive from biology.  Most of these cues relate to harm vs benefit, fair vs unfair, etc.  While people have subjective interpretations of these cues, The cues themselves are objective and evolution helps to explain why we disagree sometimes. 


It would logically follow that evolution favors survival and group behaviors are beneficial, that having a biological cue that enables group behavior would allow one to reproduce more.  It would also follow that since mutations are random, that there wouldn't be a uniform set of cues.  So some people might develop cues of different types that maybe are not equally beneficial but are both beneficial enough to maintain a population to some degree. 

Since the cues are within our DNA and our opinion doesn't actually change the cue, then this means the cue is objective and since all of our morality comes from this cue it's fair to say that it's objective. 


#52
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
For instance, how are you adding the Triangles? 
Adding is arithmetic process.  With the triangles example of synergetic combinations, we are not adding the number of lines/vectors/edges.

We are only adding{ combining } the number of triangles { 1 + 1 } shape { metaphysical-1 } and/or angles { metaphysical-1 }  within the triangles { 3 + 3 }. If were to add the lines/vectors/edges { 3 + 3 } there is no synergetic resultant, there is only an arithmetic resultant { 3 + 3 = 6 lines }.

Also, to be more considerate of synergetic aspects we can say that vertexes { 3 lines intersecting Y } as 4 vertexes{ \Y/ } are created, where before there were no vertexes involved with only the 2D triangles.

Also we also have to consider the obvious, weve gone from only considering a non-specified value for area, and to area and non-specified volume{ 3D } via synergy.

Am I adding them by Quantity?
Ditto above

By Total Area?
Triangles ergo polygons enclose an area, but specific area values considerations are not necessary to realize the synergetic resultants, as Ive presented them via Fullers expression of them.

Am I overlapping them for Hue?
Color{ "hue" } is not necessary consideration to the synergetics resultants as presented.

Just putting Triangle + Triangle would basically be a type of math you're making correct?
Ditto all of the above.

Also, I'm not sure how 2 triangles equals 4 triangles of the same size.  Do you mean the same size as each other? or the Same size as the two previous triangles?
Yes the synergetic resultant is same size triangles, however, and I repeat, any  specific size { ex area } values is not necessary to present synerticallly resultant values as I have done via Fullers presenting of 1  + 1 = 4.

Apparrently youve never seen the LINK to this visual information.  Ive presented it for many years in many forum topics. Maybe I forgot in this thread.



Topic's author
#53
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@mustardness
So my only question at this point is "how do you define synergetic?"
#54
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
All of which leaves us with different ideas about what is and is not immoral which is exactly what subjective means.
Topic's author
#55
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I would have to disagree there.  objective means "true apart from our opinions"  If there were multiple different cues which are all objective, then they're all true regardless of human opinion.  So the moral isn't subjective, just people's assessments of them.  
#56
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Some humans do not value other humans wellbeing. They are called sociopaths and they disagree that the moral isn't subjective.
Topic's author
#57
Wrick-It-Ralph
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 420
2
7
9
Wrick-It-Ralph's avatar
Wrick-It-Ralph
2
7
9
-->
@secularmerlin
also explained by evolution.  Random mutations = random biology = random objective morals.   Everybody with the same cues has the same morals. That makes it objective because it's an objective fact that my body sends me a negative cue when I watch someone die in front of me EVEN IF I have a different opinion about it. 
#58
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Random mutations = random biology = random morals = subjective morals.
#59
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
Everybody with the same cues has the same morals.

Not everyone has the same cues.
#60
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Wrick-It-Ralph
I believe (suspect more than not - i'm sorta agnostic) that my consciousness will survive death. You can ask me to define consciousness, but basically... that part of your self that has always been "you." The consistency throughout your life that hasn't changed. I can get into detail about that if you'd like. I believe that side is infinite. I believe i am a finite being and also an infinite being. However, i do not think i stay in the infinite state long. I believe i live and die... eternally. A movie analogy best describes this. This life is one movie, next will be another... and so forth (and what movie i play is up to me). Notice how i've said "i" this whole time... i really don't know about anyone else. However, everyone else does fit into the platforms that allow for this implication that i believe (i can describe that as well). Actually, i can describe all of this... if you can stump me, i'll change my belief. In total, that's what i believe and there are multiple platforms that allow for this. I just don't think the platforms are as important as the "i" part... knowing yourself is key in these platforms that people usually miss. It's either two options for me: Nothing happens (then i don't have to worry about it); or something happens... that something i believe is this.