Mojo
Mostly harmless
Did da Vinci claim to have built and successfully flown a manned flying machine, and advertise the claim in a magazine likely to be read by potential investors?
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
sinnikal
Muse
With luck this thread has now come to a natural end.
You know Bubba, over here in the UK we have a quaint expression that perfectly describes trying to 'add value' to a worthless product, 'polishing a turd'. I have never come across such a brilliant practitioner as your good self.
You know Bubba, over here in the UK we have a quaint expression that perfectly describes trying to 'add value' to a worthless product, 'polishing a turd'. I have never come across such a brilliant practitioner as your good self.
What, you still here. Bubble-O Bill? STILL rattling on about OS 0 1 2?
*SNORT!*
http://www.burningdoor.com/lineofsite/archives/os2 2.1 1-thumb.PNG
*SNORT!*
http://www.burningdoor.com/lineofsite/archives/os2 2.1 1-thumb.PNG
Ha ha! Ever the optimist, eh. I see loads of potential for a master polisher such as Bubba!
Watch this space.
PS. It will either be like watching paint dry........... or watching paint dry.
sinnikal
Muse
Dean Morrison
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 54
Wow - I don't know whether to congratulate you for having such a cute kid - or be alarmed that you've been breeding.
Still considering the content of your posts here it's as easy to dismiss as fantasy.
So I'll apply the same rules of evidence as you assume you're just making this up...
Yes, he also placed commercials on local cable television channels, he had too, the vatican refused to fund this research, and they refused to accept that a man could ever possibly fly.
Was this before or after Aristotle murdered him for pretending to be Pythagoras and introducing zero into Greek mathematics?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Now, now. Don't go worrying Bubblefish. He too has introduced zero into mathematics.
So does that make him Pythagoras, or does it make him Aristotle?
Jonny,
We are at a very critical stage of this discussion. We have a foundation that can be built upon. It is neccesary to appreciate this agreement to move forward.
We have agreement on the 0, 1, and 2. 0,1,and 2, as natural numbers on the natural number line, reflect and perfectly symbolize the distinctions that are used in OS 0 1 2.
So, when you say
I should point out that this is limited to 0,1, and 2, yes, but it reflects the broader sense of what I am explaining.
0,1, and 2 as natural numbers, used in ordering and counting, are the foundation of this process. If that foundation was proven to be invalid, or magical as many reacted and assumed, then this system would also be such. If these distinctions are valid mathematically, then this foundation is valid.
Let me explain.
0=Natural Number Line
1=The Counting Number
2=The Ordering Number
We 'count' in orderings of 1, or in distinctions of 'one' and 'many'. One and many are also a set of oppositions, of dichatomies. We understand that distinction at a basic level because ordering and counting, as we agree, are hardwired into us. Although the set of distinctions of 'one' and 'many' are two distinctions, they are two distinctions that can come to represent a number of the highest magnitude, a number that can be understood as an almost infinite number of counting '1's.
That relationship, 'one' and 'many', is the same relationship as true and false, objective and subjective. These distinctions are exalted and refined into two major contributions in human culture, art and science.
And we can be certain of this.
Please note here, I wish to speak of 'certainty' in the same manner that a mathematicain uses 'certainty'
It (probablity) gives us the most likely outcome that we can assume to be either true or false. Like Zaay's arguments, for example. True unknowns and false unknowns, assigning degrees to the knowledge that the unknown can only be understood in terms of true and false, but only after it is known for certain, until then, we make assumptions, use probablity, or use hueristics (philosophy) to navigate our sense of true and false around an unknown event
I dont disagree with that either, except with the claim that 'every statement' can be either true or false. Sure, at some point, we can determine the truth value after the fact, so it's true in princaple, but in reality, we have to analyze ideas critically in the present moment, and often we cannot tell one way or the other. "WMD exist in Iraq" is a perfect example. We now know for certain that is a false statement. We didn't know that in 2003, so we went to war to get rid of them, as the popular argument tells us.
So, OS 0 1 2 is about being absolutly certain in our statements and ideas, holding the exact same value of 'certainty' that is held in mathematics. I think as critical thinkers, the standard of certainty is certainly the most trusted one.
yes! there is the mystery that is a 'puzzle', which in princaple we know we can figure out at somepoint although we dont have the answer currently, and then there are the 'great mysteries', such as death, humanities origins, purpose, etc etc.
that's what I mean,yes. We are hard-wired to order and count, and to break things down into true, false, and unknown.
Here is the kicker, however. I think that we have lost track of our natural ordering and counting and innate sense of t/f/m due to belief systems which do not aknowledge or utilize our natural ternary understanding of the world. I refer to this as 'irrationality'. Irrationality is relative to the 2 as rationality is relative to the 1. I am a highly IRrational human being as an artist, but a highly rational human being as a thinker. There is a natural place for our irrationality, humanity did not invent it consciously, but due to belief systems, we misappropiate it as something else, we confuse irrationality with rationality, we confuse ordering as counting, we confuse false as true. And we do this because we are 'irrational' in the face of the unknown, and confuse that 'irrationality' as a truth value of certainty to disregard what is unknown to protect our belief systems or guiding philosophy.
Honesty is essential to the spread of accurate information. We need accurat information to evolve society. When there is dishonesty, we are spreading false ideas believed to be true, mysterious ideas believed to be false, and true ideas assumed to be mysterious.
exactly, and the same thing with OS 0 1 2. OS 0 1 2 provides 'certainty', and if we are dishonest, we simply cant be 'honestly' certain our truth value is accurate.
Then let's make the connection between honesty and rationality. What do both of them share in common? Truth. The ability to distinguish what is true, and what is not true. Rational thought is simply an extention of honesty thought. I would imagine they are apart of a similar set of hardwires. They both exalt into 'objectivity'
Now, to keep our discussion on tract, I queried "is not 1,000,000, (M) not 'one million' ones?
agreed, we understand at a very basic level the rational and logical neccesity of 'ordering' things into symbols which contain the full information. We 'compress' high amounts of information into 'symbols' that allow us to compute and consider larger and larger amounts of information. It's built into us, so we dont need to conceptualize the full set of '1's in a million, but we can, as critical thinkers, deconstruct it down to a million ones, and be certain that our deconstruction was accurate. That's all I'm saying. And we can do this at a very basic level because of the simple distinctions between 'one' and 'many'.
that's what I mean, and to turn it fully around 360 into harmony, we can say that our evolution was interwoven with objective reality. Hence, in OS 0 1 2 basic, which is an intuitive presentation of this process, it says "Simply, our ideas of the world shape the world. And the world shapes our ideas. We create them and they create us."
This is what is called 'comprehensive' thinking. to observe the whole sum functioning together. It's a synergy. Now, I use that word critically. It was coined by my biggest hero of all time, Buckminster Fuller. Synergy is defined inside of OS 0 1 2 as 'all sides contribute, all sides win the collective output of all contributing'. Bucky defined synergy as 'behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the separately observed behaviors of any of the system’s separate parts or any subassembly of the system’s parts'.
in the 21st century, both are conforming to each other. We now make very critical impact on environment and reality. We even understand how to make 'black holes'!
agreed, but probablity is not certainty, it is a way of navigating uncertainty. I dont think you can compare them against each other. all are neccesary intellectual tools for arriving at truth.
agreed. but reality can only be 'understood' in certain terms as true, or false, or unknown. Probablity is a way of analyzing 'unknown' or the third value. If there was no third value, there would be no need for probability.
I dont think it is hard at all to describe human experience in precise, non ambigous terms. human experience is the 'many' as opposed to the '1' of human knowledge. It's either objective, subjective, or some combination.
well here is where dialectic and this system is very useful. We cant step outside of ourselves, no, but everyone else is outside of us! Through honest tit for tat with others, we can come to be very certain about ourselves. This is nothing more than common integrity. A human being with integrity will come to find identical ideas about self as others have with him or her.
That's just it, they have! They are not realizing it fully, but they have been arguing for it, their statements, which we can accept that they believe as true, reflect that the third value is meaningless, it doesnt exist. How many times have people said that on this thread?
Unknown in the human experience is the third value. The third value is nothing more than the unknown in human experience.
very deep. and when we are faced with the unknown, all we have are our ideas about what it 'maybe' to go on. And then, at a very deep level of metaprogramming, we tag those 'maybe's as 'true'. Thus, we get religion, the supernatural, and bad philosophy.
I like that
all of the above, 1 recapitulates, no?
yes, it is an abstraction, a 'true' idea, not the ding an sich. I loved that line in Godel, esher, and bach, when the author states '1 +1 = 2' most of the time, except when adding drops of water together!
What is important is the distinction between the 'one' and the 'many'. It recapitulates in ordering and counting.
Even if your a QM scientist and put forth a theorum, you are still going to have x number of steps taken, written on x number of pages, worked on for x number of days, applying to x number of particales. Ordering and counting is the highest 'order' that surrounds all other concepts we have.
It is just as much as a conceptual abstraction, but what is important is the distinction amongst the conceptual abstractions, the relationship. One to the Many is a very important distinction that governs the abstractions.
but the distinction of 'one' and 'many' still holds.
we dont need to deconstruct everything down unless it is neccesary to. It's not neccesary that I do that with my computer to refer to my computer. My computer in language assumes all that information by default.
I only need to make the abstraction that 'one trillion' apples is very very very many apples!
How I mean them is 'one' and 'many'
That would be a certain statement. For certain we can say that. Everything else is probability based on our knowledge (which is limited) and our belief system.
That is how I think agnosticism is the purest rational argument, to really open up that can of worms further. I think atheism and faith are both equally irrational and niether certain.
agnosticm is the third value, by the way, in this triad.
Same thing in OS 0 1 2. We must have certainty. Certainty is very important in critical thinking, and it has nothing to do with opinions.
Really good pass, Jonny. I have to say, you are one of the most rational people I have found on the internet!
Bubblefish
We are at a very critical stage of this discussion. We have a foundation that can be built upon. It is neccesary to appreciate this agreement to move forward.
We have agreement on the 0, 1, and 2. 0,1,and 2, as natural numbers on the natural number line, reflect and perfectly symbolize the distinctions that are used in OS 0 1 2.
So, when you say
I should point out that this is limited to 0,1, and 2, yes, but it reflects the broader sense of what I am explaining.
0,1, and 2 as natural numbers, used in ordering and counting, are the foundation of this process. If that foundation was proven to be invalid, or magical as many reacted and assumed, then this system would also be such. If these distinctions are valid mathematically, then this foundation is valid.
Let me explain.
0=Natural Number Line
1=The Counting Number
2=The Ordering Number
We 'count' in orderings of 1, or in distinctions of 'one' and 'many'. One and many are also a set of oppositions, of dichatomies. We understand that distinction at a basic level because ordering and counting, as we agree, are hardwired into us. Although the set of distinctions of 'one' and 'many' are two distinctions, they are two distinctions that can come to represent a number of the highest magnitude, a number that can be understood as an almost infinite number of counting '1's.
That relationship, 'one' and 'many', is the same relationship as true and false, objective and subjective. These distinctions are exalted and refined into two major contributions in human culture, art and science.
And we can be certain of this.
Please note here, I wish to speak of 'certainty' in the same manner that a mathematicain uses 'certainty'
It (probablity) gives us the most likely outcome that we can assume to be either true or false. Like Zaay's arguments, for example. True unknowns and false unknowns, assigning degrees to the knowledge that the unknown can only be understood in terms of true and false, but only after it is known for certain, until then, we make assumptions, use probablity, or use hueristics (philosophy) to navigate our sense of true and false around an unknown event
I dont disagree with that either, except with the claim that 'every statement' can be either true or false. Sure, at some point, we can determine the truth value after the fact, so it's true in princaple, but in reality, we have to analyze ideas critically in the present moment, and often we cannot tell one way or the other. "WMD exist in Iraq" is a perfect example. We now know for certain that is a false statement. We didn't know that in 2003, so we went to war to get rid of them, as the popular argument tells us.
So, OS 0 1 2 is about being absolutly certain in our statements and ideas, holding the exact same value of 'certainty' that is held in mathematics. I think as critical thinkers, the standard of certainty is certainly the most trusted one.
yes! there is the mystery that is a 'puzzle', which in princaple we know we can figure out at somepoint although we dont have the answer currently, and then there are the 'great mysteries', such as death, humanities origins, purpose, etc etc.
that's what I mean,yes. We are hard-wired to order and count, and to break things down into true, false, and unknown.
Here is the kicker, however. I think that we have lost track of our natural ordering and counting and innate sense of t/f/m due to belief systems which do not aknowledge or utilize our natural ternary understanding of the world. I refer to this as 'irrationality'. Irrationality is relative to the 2 as rationality is relative to the 1. I am a highly IRrational human being as an artist, but a highly rational human being as a thinker. There is a natural place for our irrationality, humanity did not invent it consciously, but due to belief systems, we misappropiate it as something else, we confuse irrationality with rationality, we confuse ordering as counting, we confuse false as true. And we do this because we are 'irrational' in the face of the unknown, and confuse that 'irrationality' as a truth value of certainty to disregard what is unknown to protect our belief systems or guiding philosophy.
Honesty is essential to the spread of accurate information. We need accurat information to evolve society. When there is dishonesty, we are spreading false ideas believed to be true, mysterious ideas believed to be false, and true ideas assumed to be mysterious.
Well, you can be dishonest doing math, but you won't arrive at the correct answer.
exactly, and the same thing with OS 0 1 2. OS 0 1 2 provides 'certainty', and if we are dishonest, we simply cant be 'honestly' certain our truth value is accurate.
Then let's make the connection between honesty and rationality. What do both of them share in common? Truth. The ability to distinguish what is true, and what is not true. Rational thought is simply an extention of honesty thought. I would imagine they are apart of a similar set of hardwires. They both exalt into 'objectivity'
Now, to keep our discussion on tract, I queried "is not 1,000,000, (M) not 'one million' ones?
agreed, we understand at a very basic level the rational and logical neccesity of 'ordering' things into symbols which contain the full information. We 'compress' high amounts of information into 'symbols' that allow us to compute and consider larger and larger amounts of information. It's built into us, so we dont need to conceptualize the full set of '1's in a million, but we can, as critical thinkers, deconstruct it down to a million ones, and be certain that our deconstruction was accurate. That's all I'm saying. And we can do this at a very basic level because of the simple distinctions between 'one' and 'many'.
that's what I mean, and to turn it fully around 360 into harmony, we can say that our evolution was interwoven with objective reality. Hence, in OS 0 1 2 basic, which is an intuitive presentation of this process, it says "Simply, our ideas of the world shape the world. And the world shapes our ideas. We create them and they create us."
This is what is called 'comprehensive' thinking. to observe the whole sum functioning together. It's a synergy. Now, I use that word critically. It was coined by my biggest hero of all time, Buckminster Fuller. Synergy is defined inside of OS 0 1 2 as 'all sides contribute, all sides win the collective output of all contributing'. Bucky defined synergy as 'behavior of whole systems unpredicted by the separately observed behaviors of any of the system’s separate parts or any subassembly of the system’s parts'.
in the 21st century, both are conforming to each other. We now make very critical impact on environment and reality. We even understand how to make 'black holes'!
agreed, but probablity is not certainty, it is a way of navigating uncertainty. I dont think you can compare them against each other. all are neccesary intellectual tools for arriving at truth.
agreed. but reality can only be 'understood' in certain terms as true, or false, or unknown. Probablity is a way of analyzing 'unknown' or the third value. If there was no third value, there would be no need for probability.
I dont think it is hard at all to describe human experience in precise, non ambigous terms. human experience is the 'many' as opposed to the '1' of human knowledge. It's either objective, subjective, or some combination.
well here is where dialectic and this system is very useful. We cant step outside of ourselves, no, but everyone else is outside of us! Through honest tit for tat with others, we can come to be very certain about ourselves. This is nothing more than common integrity. A human being with integrity will come to find identical ideas about self as others have with him or her.
That's just it, they have! They are not realizing it fully, but they have been arguing for it, their statements, which we can accept that they believe as true, reflect that the third value is meaningless, it doesnt exist. How many times have people said that on this thread?
Unknown in the human experience is the third value. The third value is nothing more than the unknown in human experience.
very deep. and when we are faced with the unknown, all we have are our ideas about what it 'maybe' to go on. And then, at a very deep level of metaprogramming, we tag those 'maybe's as 'true'. Thus, we get religion, the supernatural, and bad philosophy.
I like that
all of the above, 1 recapitulates, no?
yes, it is an abstraction, a 'true' idea, not the ding an sich. I loved that line in Godel, esher, and bach, when the author states '1 +1 = 2' most of the time, except when adding drops of water together!
What is important is the distinction between the 'one' and the 'many'. It recapitulates in ordering and counting.
Even if your a QM scientist and put forth a theorum, you are still going to have x number of steps taken, written on x number of pages, worked on for x number of days, applying to x number of particales. Ordering and counting is the highest 'order' that surrounds all other concepts we have.
It is just as much as a conceptual abstraction, but what is important is the distinction amongst the conceptual abstractions, the relationship. One to the Many is a very important distinction that governs the abstractions.
but the distinction of 'one' and 'many' still holds.
we dont need to deconstruct everything down unless it is neccesary to. It's not neccesary that I do that with my computer to refer to my computer. My computer in language assumes all that information by default.
I only need to make the abstraction that 'one trillion' apples is very very very many apples!
How I mean them is 'one' and 'many'
That would be a certain statement. For certain we can say that. Everything else is probability based on our knowledge (which is limited) and our belief system.
That is how I think agnosticism is the purest rational argument, to really open up that can of worms further. I think atheism and faith are both equally irrational and niether certain.
agnosticm is the third value, by the way, in this triad.
Same thing in OS 0 1 2. We must have certainty. Certainty is very important in critical thinking, and it has nothing to do with opinions.
Really good pass, Jonny. I have to say, you are one of the most rational people I have found on the internet!
Bubblefish
Blobby, I presume you think the word "illiterate" is redundant, always allowing for the remote possibility you know what the it means.
gee, which one is more human of a response? I would take the oppurtunity, here, Dean, of being more human and congradulate me. You need the PR!
Bubblefish
Then you have irrational values, since you're reading '*****'!
Interesting, when we frame something we dont understand in unpleasant terms, we are only looking and interacting with our unpleasant terms!
So now ol fussypuss sinnikal is throwing poop in his/her face, and returns here everyday to do so!
How's that for an irrational value?
you keep on putting 'guesses' at the foundation of your knowledge tree, elmer. you go girl!
O Father of Science, forgive me, for I have commited a very grave error. I have sinned against thee, I have spoken of blaspemy and unspeakable things!
You're really over exaggerting the reality a bit, eh? If you model it like that, no wonder you're all upset!
It's like saying we cant use Newton's Law's of Gravity for Spaceflight because Einstien came along with relativity.
And the universe already doesn't make sense. We have dark matter and dark energy. We either have an eternity, or something from nothing. Both seem unfathomable, yet we get one or the other.
I think you're confusing your ideas about the universe as the actual universe!
I dont think any scientist could say for 100% certainty that our laws of thermodynamics could never be overturned, or at least updated to fit new discoveries or anomalies.
You're really over exaggerting the reality a bit, eh? If you model it like that, no wonder you're all upset!
It's like saying we cant use Newton's Law's of Gravity for Spaceflight because Einstien came along with relativity.
And the universe already doesn't make sense. We have dark matter and dark energy. We either have an eternity, or something from nothing. Both seem unfathomable, yet we get one or the other.
I think you're confusing your ideas about the universe as the actual universe!
I dont think any scientist could say for 100% certainty that our laws of thermodynamics could never be overturned, or at least updated to fit new discoveries or anomalies.
Last edited:
Oh Starfish.
I wrote 'guess' because the word theory is so wildly misused.
But I would expect you to understand the difference.
Dr. Kitten,
Are you going to address the critical arguments, refined in the exchange between JonnyFive and myself, or are you going to play heckler with the schmoos from badscience.net?
See, they didnt address my arguments critically either, they were like monkies throwing their poop down from the trees, and when I would 'goad' one of the monkey's to come down and discuss, they would jump right back into the tree to throw thier poop after one or two passes in honest exchange.
Now the monkies follow me here, and for THREE months now, are still playing monkey.
I am thier life and excitement, i don't want to be yours. Monkey's love playing with poop, as we all know. They claim I write poop, and for three months continue to follow me around playing with it. I can't wait for them to see that they have really been playing with thier own poop, here and thier whole entire lives, and blame it on everyone else!
I suspect you're a critical thinker too, and I request you bring to this discussion your honesty and critical thinking, not your poop.
Bubblefish
Last edited:
then you're still making the same critical errors. You're putting multiple theories as the foundation of your knowledge tree!
Love, Bubblefish
pst.....as critical thinkers, we want ' multiple theories' at the top of our knowledge tree, not at the foundation! and if you meant to use 'theory', then YOU were wildly misusing the word!
what an elmer....