Skepticism and The Normal

[jimbob]

so what? We have probability to analyze the uncertain value. The uncertain value is the third value. Probability is EVIDENCE that the third value exists, both philosophically AND logically.

OS 012 is NOT a self refrential logic. It does NOT replace or refute probability. It is a DIALECTIC, a method of exchanging the very limit of truth values in meaning and dialouge. Thats it.



When you get that OS 012 is NOT a system of knowledge, but a system of UNDERSTANDING knowledge, you'll be more educated than you have been in our discussion.

OS 012 is NOT about KNOWLEDGE.

OS 012 is about UNDERSTANDING KNOWLEDGE.


Any knowledge contained in OS 012 is not new and common empirical knowledge found in many academic studies.

WHen you understand OS 012, you will understand me awhole lot better.


BF

But if *I* don't look at the world in terms of T-F-M, *why* shouldI think that other people should. Some pepole look at the world mainly in terms of black and white, and may be surprised to think of the unknown (I doubt this but I will accept the possibility). Others don't, and mainly use shades of grey. What is to be gained from trivalent asessments?

How can any conflict be solved if one (or more) parties doesn't want it to be (other than overwhelming force imposing t a settlement)?

Can a trivalent system make any difference? No.

How does a trivalent system distinguish between different types of unknown to the other party? It can't, as you need more values.

 

[WWHP]

Jimbob, I think you have asked the best question ever.

But if *I* don't look at the world in terms of T-F-M, *why* shouldI think that other people should.

That's just it, you do look at the world in those terms at a higher level, we all do. We just dont have the same language or meaning when we do in communication.

For example, using pure analytical thinking, that of a scientist and a mathematician, outline in theorum an objective description of UFO. Make sure to distinguish your opinion about them and delete your opinions from your answer. Express no emotion, simply denote what is the repeating factor in all reports.


What is a UFO?

Some pepole look at the world mainly in terms of black and white, and may be surprised to think of the unknown (I doubt this but I will accept the possibility). Others don't, and mainly use shades of grey. What is to be gained from trivalent asessments?

because there are things unknown to all points of view. There is no point of view where everything is known. Simply stating 'unknown' is nothing more than an honest assesment of any phenomena, be it UFO, or calculus.

As both Jonny and I agree, we all have an innate fear of the unknown. to define the unknown as unknown requires us to do more thinking to uncover what is known, and what is known to be false. Most people don't wish to do that for whatever reasons, that's not important right now. What is important is that stating 'unknown' and leaving it unknown causes a reaction in our minds. This reaction produces a false idea, an idea about the thing unknown. Perhaps it BS, this unknown thing, perhaps it's aliens, perhaps it's some phenomena we can't concieve of yet.

To give you an example of how many possible false ideas can exist about something unknown, let's again defer to UFO.

look at all the ideas about the unknown there are.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q='UFO'&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Is UFO itself not the best example of an unknown object we all can agree on?

A mysterious object indeed. There is no proof of what UFO's are one way or another. I saw one once. It could have been a meteor, but it took an upward turn apparently deflecting gravity. Maybe it was just the meteor's angle, or perhaps it wasnt one at all. It could be a collective symbol for something, both Jung and Mckenna often talked about it's existence pertaining to something in our collective psyche which is unaddressed at the individual level. Mystery? Seems plausable, who knows for sure.

Who ever says they do, I want critical, substantial, double blinded study that has been duplicated and repeated and is accepted as true in the standard and academic sense of the word. Until we do, we dont know wtf.

So don't tell me you dont percieve mystery in the world, we all do.

How can any conflict be solved if one (or more) parties doesn't want it to be (other than overwhelming force imposing t a settlement)?

At the heart of all conflicts, there are mutual problems that are at the base of those conflicts, and every rational and feeling human being wants those problems resolved. Those problems include hunger, poverty, disease, and lack of education. Until those problems are solved, we will have those who seek power to solve those problems by creating false problems that do not exist so they can avoid solving the real problems that do exist.

And they are able to pull that off politically because of the basic human reaction to encountering an unknown. Politicians avoid dealing with the unknown because to state unknown is to state ingornance. To state ignorance is to state a lack of failure. To state a lack of failure is to state defeat politically.


I find it funny that most cover ups of UFO's are not conspiracies to hide evidence of aliens, but rather to hide evidence of ignorance!

Can a trivalent system make any difference? No.

absolutly! our shared perceptions of ideas or reality are limited to 0, 1, and 2. They operate all of our perceptions, they are our meta language. We all use them all the time, we just dont refer to them as the same things all the time.

OS 012 brings them out into discussion, and then defines them.

How does a trivalent system distinguish between different types of unknown to the other party?

Not sure if I understand your question. If party A does not know what x is, they dont know what x is. Do I understand you?

It can't, as you need more values.

no, you need probability to guide you through the third value.


BF

 

[jimbob]

Jimbob, I think you have asked the best question ever.




That's just it, you do look at the world in those terms at a higher level, we all do. We just dont have the same language or meaning when we do in communication.

OK, I won't answer all the points, as I havn't much time, but:

I agree with you, there are some questions that I might answer in terms of T-F-M, but many that I don't.

Does the Sun circle the Earth? No

Does the Earth circlle the sun? That is *pretty* accurate.

Is the Earth's orbit elliptical, and does it obey Kepler's laws of motion? Better

Is this because it obeys Newton's law of gravitation? Better still, and fine for most situations. If the question was about the planet Mercury, you would need to say that a relativistic treatment provides a better description.

This is how I think about this subject. It is also how I thnk about many other subjects.

In politics, I tend to think of answers in terms of the least overall harm: Is it better that an innocent person is imprisoned or that 99 guilty people go free? Neither is good, but I'd argue that the secind is the less bad option. None of these values at all but bad and less-bad.

At the heart of all conflicts, there are mutual problems that are at the base of those conflicts, and every rational and feeling human being wants those problems resolved. Those problems include hunger, poverty, disease, and lack of education. Until those problems are solved, we will have those who seek power to solve those problems by creating false problems that do not exist so they can avoid solving the real problems that do exist.

Again, I think you are too idealisic. Did Slobodan Milosevic *want* a resloved solution to the Bosnia question? No, he wanted to use this as a tool to keep him in power.

You could argue that it *was* a "rational" approach, just staggeringly immoral.

Many people do *not* want a just and fair olution to problems, they want an unjust solutioon, with them on top.

Not sure if I understand your question. If party A does not know what x is, they dont know what x is. Do I understand you?

Was your UFO a meteor? Unknown; I agree with you.

Are any UFOs aliens, in principle this could be shown to be true.

Is there life after death? There is obviously an answer to this, but in practice it is unknowable.

Is Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" the most beutiful work of art in history? This is a *subjective* opinion and can be discussed, but isn't an unknown. It would be just as valid, if a little odd, to say that Picasso's "Guernica" was.

This aesthetic judgement is of a different order to the other statements.

The same could be made for moral judgements:

"Is it better that an innocent person is imprisoned or that 99 guilty people go free?"

I have stated my position, but there is no objective truth in that statement, just a reflection of my ethics.

It is possible to discuss these issues, but you can't argue about the objective truth or otherwise of the statements*

*Unless you accept a moral code imposed from a superior being, which I don't.

Jim

 

[flimflam_machine]

I never said it wasn't possible, I said it's useless unless we can determine which is which. If I took those two statements at face value, I could not determine either way which one was true/unknown or false/unknown until you confirmed it. What's the point of having a system like that?

And how does OS012 get round this other than by ascribing the term "mystery" to any statement whose truth value is unknown? As many people have said, there is nothing to be gained from OS012 because it does not give you any more power to say whether a statment is true or false (as all statements are) from a given amount of information. If you want to know the truth value, get more information; if you don't, deal with it being unknown.

What I think riles you is that people are prepared to run their lives by accepting statements as true or false on the basis of incomplete evidence (the problem of induction). The problem is that even if you accept that some statements are mysterious you will still run your life on the assumption that they are true or false. I can't say with 100% certainty that I will be paid at the end of the month, but I continue to come to work in the assumption that the statement "I will be paid" is true. Nor can I say with 100% certainty that Ithere isn't an axe-wielding maniac in my house, but I will still go there tonight on the assumption that the statement "I will be murdered" is false.

Some more statements:

3: The book in front of flimflam_machine has < 300 pages
4: The book in front of flimflam_machine has > 299 pages

Currently both those statements are unknown to me, but, nevertheless, one is true and one is false.

Now before you check, not after, which one is it? YOU DONT KNOW.

Yes, if you read what I wrote Mr. Pot you'll notice that I said "both these statements are unknown to me".

and you just used the third value...you said it is 'unknown to me'. You didnt say 'it's a false unknown' or a 'true unknown'. and after you check, it's no longer an unknown at all!

So mystery = "unknown to me", and that's meant to be a truth vaue alongside true and false? So zaay was right, values within OS012 depend entirely on your point of view.

This four value logic is useless. It simply analyzes something that was once unknown, determines it to be either true or false, and then backtracks and refers to the past to say 'Hah! It WAS a true/unknown then!"

erf, who cares?

So, given that you've just said that the third value (mystery) = "unknown to me", OS012 would say "it was mystery then and true now". How is that more useful?

notice your language, notice your use of the word was. See? Who cares what it was? the third value is about what it IS, now.

Notice above that you don't deny that the statement "The book in front of flimflam_machine has < 300 pages" was true. So if I take another statement (e.g., "the pencil in front of flimflamweighs weighs < 20 grams") and test its truth value later and find that it was true it means that at the point the statement was made i.e., now, the statement is true. As long as the referent of the statement doesn't change, the truth value of a statement referring to it doesn't change with time. There's no need for mystery within true vs. false.

Quote:
However the truth value of both statements is now known to me, their knowledge value has gone from "unknown" to "known" (from my point of view) and their truth value hasn't changed.

gee, you're using the third value again. sheesh.

Erm, no. No I'm not.

Quote:

Conversely, if my rather old cat died when I wasn't around the statement "Flimflam_machine's cat is alive" goes from true_unknown to false_unknown (from my point of view).

huh? If you cat dies when your not around, you dont know one way or the other! You dont know if you're cat is dead. It's not even true to your point of view!

Obviously failure to understand on your part. The truth value of the objective statement does not depend on anyone's point of view. The phrase "true to your point of view" is meaningless for an objective statement (and it should be "from", not "to").

Try applying your 4x4 logic that Zaay created last week to this statement.

"Tommorow, I will buy an ice coffee".

Unknown to me. Either true or false, not enough data to say at present. Again, the problem is lack of data (ignoring the fact that you've deliberately chosen a statement contingent on future action), not a logic meltdown.

No, I didnt say that. Go re-read my words again, not your memory of my words. An objectivly false statement is a statement that does NOT describe the real world. An objectivly false statement can be the same thing as a subjectivly true statement, although not always.

Is this ambiguity on your part deliberate? I get the impression that not being pinned down to a single definition of "objective" is crucial to maintaining OS012's validity in your head. You keep swinging between "objective" meaning:

(i) referring to the real world
and
(ii) accurately describing the real world (i.e., true)

depending on which suits your argument. It could just be that you have these definitions erroneously conflated in your head. To quote you from page 4:

huh? if it is false, how can it be an objective statement?

and from more recently:

But the answer when given by ANYBODY, including our collective resources, is either OBJECTIVLY TRUE, OBJECTIVLY FALSE, or an OBJECTIVE unknown.

is that good enough for your challenge:

Your wishing that to be true. Go copy and paste any two statements of mine back to back, and show me the logical contradiction. use MY words, not the 'idea' you have about my words.

Go ahead. I challenge you.

Your words, in the first quote you deny that something can be false and objective; in the second you say that something can be "objectivly false" (sic).

Or perhaps you won't accept it's truth structure for the very same reason. All of you have invested weeks, some of you months, in trying to prove this wrong, and you have failed each and every single time.

I'm interested in philosphy and logic, hence my reading of people's response to you. Other than as a cringingly inept prompt for people to discuss logic your contribution has been negligible when not completely unintelligible.

Honestly Bubb, people have not spent weeks and months trying to prove that OS012 is nonsense, most have concluded that beyond reasonable doubt in minutes or hours. What people have spent weeks and months doing is trying to convince you that it's nonsense so you can do something more worthwhile, really, we're trying to help. What draws people back is your fascinatingly superhuman, delusional, stubborness and failure to accept that OS012 is not the world-changing paradigm that you think it is. As the mods over at badscience said, when people get offensive it's because of your offensive boneheadedness; your ideas are just so trivial that they themselves aren't worth getting worked up about.

 

[chillzero]

HUMPF! Mysticism has it's place as well as objectivity. It's just a fool's errand to confuse the two of them. I would be careful about assuming what my knowledge is regarding mysticism, magick, taoism, tantra, gnosticism, cabbala if I were you!

But it seems to me that you don't understand taoism at least. I can't speak so much for the others, but taoism is based on yin/yang - not yin/yang/somethingelse.

The statement "I am wearing a white shirt" is unknown to everyone right now except me. It could be a true/unknown or a false/unknown, but how can anyone tell unless they see me or I confirm it? Sure, it's either one or the other, but that's the same thing as 'it's either true or false'. We dont know what it is yet. It's simply unknown to all of you.

But our knowledge (or lack of) has no bearing on the fact of the matter. If you are wearing a white shirt, then the statement is true, if your shirt is blue, then it is false - regardless of whether I can see you or not.

 

[chillzero]

What draws people back is your fascinatingly superhuman, delusional, stubborness and failure to accept that OS012 is not the world-changing paradigm that you think it is. As the mods over at badscience said, when people get offensive it's because of your offensive boneheadedness; your ideas are just so trivial that they themselves aren't worth getting worked up about.

worth repeating.

 

[WWHP]

I agree with you, there are some questions that I might answer in terms of T-F-M, but many that I don't.

Jimbob, whether you answer them in 0,1,2 terms or not, your still using those values regardless. Watch.

Does the Sun circle the Earth? No

Jimbob is saying that: It is true that the sun does not circle the earth.

Does the Earth circle the sun? That is *pretty* accurate.

Jimbob is saying that: It is true that describing in language 'the earth circles the sun' is a fairly accurate statement in regards to our physics.

Is the Earth's orbit elliptical, and does it obey Kepler's laws of motion? Better. Is this because it obeys Newton's law of gravitation? Better still, and fine for most situations. If the question was about the planet Mercury, you would need to say that a relativistic treatment provides a better description.

Jimbob is saying that: It is true to say that ''the earth's orbit is elliptical and it obey's Keplar's laws of motion'' is a more refined way to describe the Earth circling around the sun.


All your statements were truths, one values in OS 012, about about x. You didnt have to notate them, it's implied in your usage of grammar and text.

Statement 1.) Jimbob is saying that it is true that statement 1 is false about x.

Statement 2.) Jimbob is saying that it is true what statement 2 is saying about x, but does not define x mathematically sufficient.

Statement 3.) Jimbob is saying that it is true how statement 3 defines x is more refined than statement and preferable than statement 2.

Statement 4.) Jimbob is saying that it is true that we can come to define x more and more precisely the more we apply mathematics and science.

This is how I think about this subject. It is also how I thnk about many other subjects.

It's close to how we all think about subjects. T, F, M, are the meta-logic above all of what we percieve. Your use of the verb 'to be' implies what you believe to be true. That's just plain ol general semantics.

In politics, I tend to think of answers in terms of the least overall harm: Is it better that an innocent person is imprisoned or that 99 guilty people go free? Neither is good, but I'd argue that the secind is the less bad option. None of these values at all but bad and less-bad.

Jimbob is saying that it is true that 'none of these values at all [are used] but 'bad and less bad', and those are his set of options to model the problem. Jimbob is saying that it is true that when choosing between 'bad' and 'less bad', 'less bad' is the more rational choice.

Jimbob's conclusion in his argument how he modeled to himself it is rational.

Again, I think you are too idealisic.

I dont mind being idealistic. I am an idealist, this is certain. I am a idealist humanist futurist rational intuitive. I dont care if my arguments are idealistic or not, I just want to make sure they are rational arguments, devoid of mysticism in logical explaination.

Did Slobodan Milosevic *want* a resloved solution to the Bosnia question? No, he wanted to use this as a tool to keep him in power.

This strategy that I mention does not rely on those in power using it. That was already tried by Buckminster Fuller, and he failed that problem. He created the world game for leaders to play to resolve problems of resource. The game works, universities and corparations use the game all the time. The only problem with 'the World Game' was that world leaders didnt use it!

The method I outline can be adapted into a framework that can synthesize more refined ideas to problem solve than the political engines of politicians. It's function is not to get the politician to use it, but rather to outcompete the ideas of irrational political bodies.

You could argue that it *was* a "rational" approach, just staggeringly immoral.

Any solution that imploys a win lose strategy can be argued to be irrational, and those arguments against win lose strategy can hold and maintain themselves without producing contradictions, and will continue to expose contradictions in the arguments supporting win lose strategies continually.

That's discussion game theory, strategy, logic. It exists as a logical structure.

Many people do *not* want a just and fair olution to problems, they want an unjust solutioon, with them on top.

everybody wants to win. period. globally, we strategize in win lose terms, as in 'this side must lose x for us to have x'.

Every 'side' in the global debate will have, even if very small number, a few individuals who are rational intuitives who will naturally be seduced by the rational method of debate that is offered in OS 012.

Just like in this community. Jonny5 most likely is a rational intuitive, he naturally adjusted to the method of tit for tat. It was instinctual for him to do so. Regardless if I showed up in a hostile community or not, the most refined discussion was found, filtered, and embraced.

Was your UFO a meteor? Unknown; I agree with you.

Are any UFOs aliens, in principle this could be shown to be true.

Is there life after death? There is obviously an answer to this, but in practice it is unknowable.

okay, so first off, those are all simple 'unknowns'. each unknown may have a value relative simply to itself. 'death' for example has certain limits which perhaps may always be impenetrable and permanent mystery...but perhaps not, you never know what we are going to uncover about consciousness.

Is Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" the most beutiful work of art in history? This is a *subjective* opinion and can be discussed, but isn't an unknown.

agreed, it's a 2 value. 2 values are very close to mysterious ideas, by the way. That's the difficult distinction to make, the distinction between a false idea and a mysterious idea.

It would be just as valid, if a little odd, to say that Picasso's "Guernica" was.

all 2 values are valid to the individual's that make them.

This aesthetic judgement is of a different order to the other statements.

exactly

The same could be made for moral judgements:

"Is it better that an innocent person is imprisoned or that 99 guilty people go free?"

morals and ethics are two distinctions that share the same location in social administration.

what's important is how we model political problems. the query 'Is it better that an innocent person is imprisoned or that 99 guilty people go free?' is not very helpful, for it would depend upon the environment. If that innocent person going free was, say, Albert Einstein fleeing Nazi Germany as opposed to '99 citizens guilty of being 'jews' being freed by the Nazi's, then it's a different scenario, right?

I have stated my position, but there is no objective truth in that statement, just a reflection of my ethics.

the most rational and logic ethic to have, in relationship to the self, and the self with others, is win win. There is no rational argument in defending win lose ethics or morals.

It is possible to discuss these issues, but you can't argue about the objective truth or otherwise of the statements*

Those types of discussions is where OS 012 shines perfectly.

*Unless you accept a moral code imposed from a superior being, which I don't.

any superior being that would not see the effectivness and elegance of 'win win' strategies and ethics couldnt be very superior, eh?


BF

 

[Basilio]

Hey Guys!
I've got a great Idea. Let introduce BubbleFish to DJJ (DavidJayJordan).
I'd pay money for that. Really.

basilio

 

[WWHP]

Flimflam, thank you!

I don’t think the mystical non trickster Wicca priest Zaay is going to be returning to these discussions, so you have inherited his throne! Thank god someone has the cajoles for it.

And how does OS012 get round this other than by ascribing the term "mystery" to any statement whose truth value is unknown?

OS 012 is a dialectic. I am not going to keep repeating that. At some point, you are going to have to do some simple research on Wikipedia or library of your choice on what dialectic is.

Inside of a dialectic, we denote truth values logically, and the we begin our question asking after then. Period. If we misdefine 0 as false, we would ask an entirely different set of questions, and all of those questions would have a false idea at it's base, not a certain idea.

How long is it going to take you to consider that? Why are you trying to argue bivalent logic against OS 012? they are not in conflict with each other, ternary logic harmonizes with bivalent logic quite easily. It's bivalent logic that can't harmonize with ternary, thus, you are in conflict with OS 012, not the ideas you are discussing.

As many people have said, there is nothing to be gained from OS012 because it does not give you any more power to say whether a statement is true or false (as all statements are) from a given amount of information. If you want to know the truth value, get more information; if you don't, deal with it being unknown.

information is similar to knowledge. once you get more information, i.e. knowledge, you STILL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT.

Dialectic is about understanding knowledge. How many more times to I have to say it?

Will you please research dialectic on wikipedia,please, before you come back to this discussion? I mean it's like you're trying to argue against trigonometry because of the advancements you have made in algebra, it just makes no sense.

What I think riles you is that people are prepared to run their lives by accepting statements as true or false on the basis of incomplete evidence (the problem of induction). The problem is that even if you accept that some statements are mysterious you will still run your life on the assumption that they are true or false. I can't say with 100% certainty that I will be paid at the end of the month, but I continue to come to work in the assumption that the statement "I will be paid" is true. Nor can I say with 100% certainty that Ithere isn't an axe-wielding maniac in my house, but I will still go there tonight on the assumption that the statement "I will be murdered" is false.

this is a dialectic, it's not a daily calendar, Blackberry or iphone.

Yes, if you read what I wrote Mr. Pot you'll notice that I said "both these statements are unknown to me".

Listen, Mr. Caffeine, not only did I notice that, but that is how I said "your USING the third value in your statement".

So mystery = "unknown to me", and that's meant to be a truth value alongside true and false? So zaay was right, values within OS012 depend entirely on your point of view.

the values inside of OS 012 are dependent upon your point of view, my point of view, and OUR point of view. that's it.

The Primacy of OS 012 is ternary in nature, existence and awareness (point of view). One is dominantly objective and the other is dominantly subjective. Once you have the primacy of point of view included into 'existence' (objective reality) you get 'mystery' by default. Thus, 0, 1 and 2, constantly recapitulating and repeating throughout all perception and all thought.

So, given that you've just said that the third value (mystery) = "unknown to me", OS012 would say "it was mystery then and true now". How is that more useful?

Because OS 012 is a dialectic for understanding knowledge. To build your dialectic, you must have certainty to have integrity in your structure, your model, that you use to understand what your looking at.

This third value is a constant in all of our perceptions. Some unknowns to some are knowns to others, yet we all share a few unknowns in common, and we all 'don't know' what unknowns are in common.

If that is not highlighted and addressed in semantics or dialogue, there will very quickly come to be group delusion in terms of problem solving and troubleshooting.

So if I take another statement (e.g., "the pencil in front of flimflamweighs weighs < 20 grams") and test its truth value later and find that it was true it means that at the point the statement was made i.e., now, the statement is true. As long as the referent of the statement doesn't change, the truth value of a statement referring to it doesn't change with time.

huh? why do we need to 'test truth values' later regarding simple statements when we can test them now while we are using them?


Don’t fall victim to over-think, it will drive ya nuts.

There's no need for mystery within true vs. false.

AGREED, true/false are the KNOWNS. as you and nontrickster Wicca master mind manipulator Zaay agree, there is the known/unknown dichotomy.

Erm, no. No I'm not.[using the third value]

yes, you are using the third value. you just are not aware of it. you need to get aware of it, your over thinking yourself silly till you do.

The truth value of the objective statement does not depend on anyone's point of view.

a truth value of 'objective true' depends upon OUR point of view. You do know that statements don't exist if we don't exist, right?

The phrase "true to your point of view" is meaningless for an objective statement (and it should be "from", not "to").

huh? If I say 'Miles Davis and Gil Evans recorded the most beautiful albums in the 20th century', your telling me that saying 'hey, BF, that's true to your point of view, I can accept that, but I think David Bowie recorded the most beautiful albums, and that's true to my point of view' is not an objective statement?

Unknown to me.

Now that's some sexy third value!

Either true or false, not enough data to say at present.

you have enough data to say 'unknown' for logical certainty, and that logical certainty has a mathematical and logical relationship with true and false.

Again, the problem is lack of data (ignoring the fact that you've deliberately chosen a statement contingent on future action), not a logic meltdown.

it's a logic meltdown if your using bivalent or Boolean, period, your computer crashes, cannot compute.


It's a logical symphony when your using ternary.

Is this ambiguity on your part deliberate?

It perhaps may be a bit of unintentional ambiguity on my part, certainly mixed with your lack of current understanding to boot on yours.

I am not insulting you. I hardly no anyone who can understand a new framework, especially one as quirky as ternary, immediately or even within a few months, even years. Yet your making it more difficult on yourself. If you were more honest and said "HEY BF, I DONT UNDERSTAND OS 012, and HERE IS WHAT I DO NOT UNDERSTAND, can you explain it to me please?" you would come to see it much sooner.

I get the impression that not being pinned down to a single definition of "objective" is crucial to maintaining OS012's validity in your head.

Hardly. Objective truths are a=a, the law of identity, founded in existence. Our awareness is hardwired to integrate reality and things=things 'function' as objectively true in our hardware.

It's the only thing objective truths can be, mutually observable truths. They are mutually observable because they exist.

You keep swinging between "objective" meaning:

(i) referring to the real world
and
(ii) accurately describing the real world (i.e., true)

those are both true at once. Objective truths can only refer to the real world. Our brains can understand that because our brains our hardwired to understand that, thus, we have a function for 'objective truth' in our brains, so things can 'function as if true' when they may not actually be true.

depending on which suits your argument. It could just be that you have these definitions erroneously conflated in your head. To quote you from page 4: [huh? if it is false, how can it be an objective statement?]

and from more recently: [But the answer when given by ANYBODY, including our collective resources, is either OBJECTIVLY TRUE, OBJECTIVLY FALSE, or an OBJECTIVE unknown.]

okay

is that good enough for your challenge?

If those statement were contradictory, yes. those statements are not contradictory.

Statement 1 says that false statements are not objective [true] statements. It may be true that they are false statements, but it is not true that false statements are objective [true] statements.

Statement 2 says that all ideas can be either objectively TRUE (which means that it is true that these statements are true), objectively FALSE (which means that it is true that these statements are false), or objectively MYSTERIOUS (which means that it is true that we cannot determine it's true or false value for any objective certainty)

Can you explain to me the contradiction?

Your words, in the first quote you deny that something can be false and objective; in the second you say that something can be "objectively false" (sic).

huh? Do you really parse my meaning that way? No wonder you think I am a retard, your modeling my argument completely retardly.

THREE TRUTH VALUES IMPLY that all values have a degree of 'truth' in their logical notation.

it is true and OBJECTIVE that

true=true
false=false
unknown=unknown

I'm interested in philosophy and logic, hence my reading of people's response to you.

You should be paying more attention to your OWN responses to me if you really want to get it.

Other than as a cringingly inept prompt for people to discuss logic your contribution has been negligible when not completely unintelligible.

if you continue to model my arguments like a retard, then you will continue to perceive retarded arguments.

Honestly Bubb, people have not spent weeks and months trying to prove that OS012 is nonsense, most have concluded that beyond reasonable doubt in minutes or hours.

I think the truth value here is that within minutes or hours, they had a reaction to OS 012, and that's called 'inner truthiness' or intuition, it's not logical deduction.

Not one single person has brought an argument to my attention that was not shown to have logical contradictions to it. That's why you are still here.

What people have spent weeks and months doing is trying to convince you that it's nonsense so you can do something more worthwhile, really, we're trying to help.

then you have irrational values and world views. I think working on dialogue and semantic structures for conflict resolution is a very worthwhile thing, even if I'm close to having what I think I have.

What value do you seek to contribute to the world to be able to say that such work is not worthwhile?

What draws people back is your fascinatingly superhuman, delusional, stubbornness and failure to accept that OS012 is not the world-changing paradigm that you think it is.

If I was delusional, my arguments would contain contradictions. If I expose contradictions in YOUR arguments, how come you still delude yourself into believing them?

Wanna go back to your 4x4 logic that you were supporting? You do know that Zaay is having a laugh now, not on me, but on all of you? He's a Wicca mystic, he thinks the world is 'too complex to model in terms of binary, ternary, or quadra logic', which means he is saying it's too MYSTERIOUS to be understood as either true, or false.

He invented that quadra non logic and you, an academic, fell for it hook line and sinker. Wanna try arguing it some more?

As the mods over at badscience said, when people get offensive it's because of your offensive boneheadedness; your ideas are just so trivial that they themselves aren't worth getting worked up about.

Then stop following me around the internet! If they wer'nt worth it, I would imagine that so many people would not spend so much time talking and thinking about them!



Bubblefish

 

[flimflam_machine]

Bubb, I was about to say that we should stop discussing OS012 as a logical system and start discussing it as a metalinguistic or epistemological one. However there's no point because, whatever it is, it appears to be based on a glaring, pre-school level logical fallacy: namely the existence of "objective mystery". Let's be really clear about this: there is no such thing. Everyone who has discussed this has said so, and it is pretty basic concept.

However, now that you've confirmed that the third value is equivalent to "unknown to me" I think that I can see how your confusion has arisen. As far as I can tell it comes from people classifying statements as follows:

(i) Statements that I know to be true
(ii) Statements that I know to be false
(iii) Statements whose truth value I do not know

Indeed, how a statement gets classified depends on who is doing the classifying. This is trivially true (for a given value of "know"). However, let's look at the following sentences:

AGREED, true/false are the KNOWNS. as you and nontrickster Wicca master mind manipulator Zaay agree, there is the known/unknown dichotomy.
...
a truth value of 'objective true' depends upon OUR point of view.

What seems clear to me from these is that you have a pretty basic failure to understand that objective statements that are classified as (iii - unknown) still have a truth value (true or false) even though you don't know what it is. You not knowing something does not qualify it as a mystery. Even if nobody knows the truth value of a statement it is still either true or false

Objective truths can only refer to the real world.

No, objective statements refer to the real world, they may be false objective statements. But they still refer to things in the real world e.g., "whales are reptiles" is an objective, false statement.

all ideas can be either objectively TRUE (which means that it is true that these statements are true), objectively FALSE (which means that it is true that these statements are false), or objectively MYSTERIOUS (which means that it is true that we cannot determine it's true or false value for any objective certainty)

Firstly, if you remove all instances of "it is true that" from this drivel it leaves all the meaning intact. Putting "it is true that" before everything does not constitute a new logical, semantic or epistemological breakthrough. Secondly, getting back to the point: this is straightforward garbage. That we cannot establish the truth value of a statement does not make it mysterious, it is still true or false e.g., Whales are either reptiles or they are not.

a truth value of 'objective true' depends upon OUR point of view. You do know that statements don't exist if we don't exist, right?

This pretty much sums up your embarrassing failure to even start making sense. The definition of an objective statement is that it is viewpoint-independent.

Let's take the objective true statement "Whales are mammals." This is true from all viewpoints, and, crucially, even if there were nobody around to say or type "Whales are mammals" it would still be true because whales would still give birth to live young who they then suckle.

Frankly if you don't understand and accept this then you are starting your argument from somewhere that is so logically and semantically bent that there's no point taking it any further.

You're right on one thing though, I don't understand OS012. You've not presented it clearly and have spent 25+ pages defending its logical premises (unsuccessfully). If it is an effective semantic or epistemological tool then show us some evidence because, frankly, that's the only hope it has left.

And finally: would you like to put it to a vote whether it's your arguments or my interpretations of them that are retarded?

Edit: Incidentally, a 2 x 2 logic still holds up, you saying that it doesn't work hardly constitutes a decent counter-argument.

Also:

then you have irrational values and world views. I think working on dialogue and semantic structures for conflict resolution is a very worthwhile thing, even if I'm close to having what I think I have.

What value do you seek to contribute to the world to be able to say that such work is not worthwhile?

Arkan, can you let us know what particular logical fallacy is please. It's basically the "Accept this as true or terrible things will happen" appeal.

 

[WWHP]

But it seems to me that you don't understand taoism at least. I can't speak so much for the others, but taoism is based on yin/yang - not yin/yang/somethingelse.

that is the vulgar/crude interpretation of taoism. any advanced practioner knows that the relationships of wu chi (both yin and yang indistinguishable, also TAO/0) and yin(2) and yang(1) are functioning all throught taoist texts and practices. The first position is Taiji Chaun is 'wu chi', there is no distinction between yin and yang, and then, one begins to make the distinctions in the movement with the opening motion.

In just one position and one movement of taiji chaun, all of ternary taoist expressions are distinguished perfectly. Taoism truly is an elegant philosophy.

I like it so much that sometimes I think about being a taoist, but then I change my mind allot, so sometimes I dont want to be a taoist, I want to be something else;-)

But our knowledge (or lack of) has no bearing on the fact of the matter. If you are wearing a white shirt, then the statement is true, if your shirt is blue, then it is false - regardless of whether I can see you or not.

to you, it's an logical unknown, and you have to calculate using something, you can't just wait for next weeks thursday to roll around to make a rational or logical reasoning.

 

[Z]

I was going to interject some useful commentary here, but considering that Rome has resorted to personal attacks and insults against me, I have to state that I find his rantings dull, predictable, and juvenile.

For the reader: Taoism also includes a summation of four and eight values as well as 0, 1, and 2. It is definitely NOT a ternary philosophy; it is much more enlightened and accepts that reality is expansively, continuously complex, but that at the basest levels, two values can be generally applied.

Rome's base insults aside, he's demonstrated once again he has only a scant surface awareness of Taoism, just as he has only a scant surface awareness of Wicca, Chi, and reality in general.

But, frankly, he has bored me at last...

Carry on, wayward commentators!

 

[WWHP]

I was going to interject some useful commentary here, but considering that Rome has resorted to personal attacks and insults against me, I have to state that I find his rantings dull, predictable, and juvenile.

HUMPF! What have I said about you that you have not said about yourself? Your just whiny because I blew your cover. If you were a better trickster, then I would not have been able to do that;-)

For the reader: Taoism also includes a summation of four and eight values as well as 0, 1, and 2.

The patterns of the i ching come from tao>yin>yang. They are made of varous combinations of yin and yang. each quadrant has THREE top lines and THREE bottom lines.

I am not effecient in the i ching though, just the distinctions of tao, yin, yang.

It is definitely NOT a ternary philosophy; it is much more enlightened and accepts that reality is expansively, continuously complex, but that at the basest levels, two values can be generally applied.

IT definantly IS a ternary philosophy. Go to an internet search and find an online translation of the Tao Te Jing. Copy the entire thing into Word. Find and replace Tao with Mystery, Yang with True, and Yin for False. Burroughs would have been proud. Enjoy!

Rome's base insults aside, he's demonstrated once again he has only a scant surface awareness of Taoism, just as he has only a scant surface awareness of Wicca, Chi, and reality in general.

An objective system simply defines what is on the 'surface'. It is superficial by default. My further insights into various systems are irrelevant.

But, frankly, he has bored me at last...

right, just as soon as your arguments are shown logical contradictions, how timely of you...

Carry on, wayward commentators!

Thanks, we shall.

hey, you see the 'devil's moon' out tonight? Ain't it a beauty?



BF

 

[chillzero]

I was going to interject some useful commentary here, but considering that Rome has resorted to personal attacks and insults against me, I have to state that I find his rantings dull, predictable, and juvenile.

For the reader: Taoism also includes a summation of four and eight values as well as 0, 1, and 2. It is definitely NOT a ternary philosophy; it is much more enlightened and accepts that reality is expansively, continuously complex, but that at the basest levels, two values can be generally applied.

Rome's base insults aside, he's demonstrated once again he has only a scant surface awareness of Taoism, just as he has only a scant surface awareness of Wicca, Chi, and reality in general.

But, frankly, he has bored me at last...

Carry on, wayward commentators!

Indeed.

I'm gonna join you for coffee/tea/unknown in the bored corner.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I feel we are reaching the point for Rome to attempt his "summing up" of the thread post. I can't wait!

And don't forget he will always win. If we argue with him it is because we find his ideas irrestistable and yet we are scared of them, so feel we have to argue against him. If we leave or ignore him it is because we are unable to destroy his argument.

I propose the third value - it is a mystery why we all like banging our heads against a brick wall.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Indeed Prof. Yaffle, that should be a treat!

I think it's interesting that now that OS012 has pretty clearly been shown to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of logic Bubb has jumped to attempting to show how it works.

As far as I can work out it works by putting the phrase "X is saying that it is true that...." in front of any statement and then claiming that as "a truth". The great advantage is that you can then claim that OS012 is not about logic, but about knowledge; and then that it's about understanding knowledge. After getting backed into the next corner I'm sure Bubb will claim that it is about understanding about understanding about knowledge, and we will see suh "truths" as:

"X is saying that it is true that it is true that it is true that all ravens are magenta."

 

[sinnikal]

Yaaaay!! After 26 pages of this I've finally got it.
Three value system - check
Resolve all conflict - check

We just need to sit all the world leaders down and persuade them to work within our great new framework!

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you.......................................

Rock....Paper.......Scissors!!

 

[flimflam_machine]

If those statement were contradictory, yes. those statements are not contradictory.

Statement 1 says that false statements are not objective [true] statements. It may be true that they are false statements, but it is not true that false statements are objective [true] statements.

Statement 2 says that all ideas can be either objectively TRUE (which means that it is true that these statements are true), objectively FALSE (which means that it is true that these statements are false), or objectively MYSTERIOUS (which means that it is true that we cannot determine it's true or false value for any objective certainty)

Can you explain to me the contradiction?

Yeah, ok. The contradiction comes from the fact that you are using two different definitions of "objective", neither of which are the usual usage within discussions of logic. In statement 1 you are using "objective" to mean "true" i.e., accurately describing the world. In statement 2 you are using "objectively" to mean confirmably.

If we take your usage from statement 1 (objective = true) then statement 1 says "false statements are not true". This is hardly news. If we then take that same definition into statement 2 you are saying that "statements are truly true, truly false or truly mysterious". The concept of a "truly false" statement is a complete oxymoron and utterly illogical, imagine saying that something is "whitely black" or "wrongly right". If you're using "truly" for emphasis (as in "this cake is truly delicious") istatement 2 is just rhetoric and doesn't tell us anything except that this your opinion.

If we take your definition from statement 2 (objectively = confirmably) then statement 1 becomes "false statements are not confirmable" which is simply tosh, "All rocks are made of jam" is an false statement that is confirmably false. Using this definition, statement 2 would also read "statements are confirmably true, confirmably false or confirmably mysterious", again this is just rubbish; if a statement is confirmable then it can be shown (in principle) to be true or false and cannot be confirmably mysterious.

So to restate, your problem is that you do not stick to one definition of "objective" and there is no one definition of "objective" that allows all your statements to be valid. I suggest that you stick to using "objective" the same way that logicians and everyone else does i.e., meaning "referring" to the real world so "Bubblefish is an antelope" is an objective statement because it refers to you and you are part of the real world.

 

[WWHP]

Bubb, I was about to say that we should stop discussing OS012 as a logical system and start discussing it as a metalinguistic or epistemological one.

That would be refreshing....

However there's no point because, whatever it is, it appears to be based on a glaring, pre-school level logical fallacy: namely the existence of "objective mystery".

Examples of Objective Mystery/Unknowns.


Consciousness.
UFO
Death
Dark Matter
each's other's internal world.

Let's be really clear about this: there is no such thing.

It is most likely the most common and shared 'thing'. Mystery is what's going on when your not observing it.

So..what's your argument against mystery again?

Everyone who has discussed this has said so, and it is pretty basic concept.

Don't know about you, but appeal to higher authority in the mob is not the most rational argument one should consider, no?

However, now that you've confirmed that the third value is equivalent to "unknown to me" I think that I can see how your confusion has arisen.

unknown is equivalent to unknown. There may be shared unknowns, or individual unknowns. They are all unknowns regardless, and there is a mathematical and logical reasoning to the relationship of unknown to true and false.

As far as I can tell it comes from people classifying statements as follows:

(i) Statements that I know to be true
(ii) Statements that I know to be false
(iii) Statements whose truth value I do not know

That's socratic dialectic, crudely put.

Indeed, how a statement gets classified depends on who is doing the classifying.

Objective and rational points of view agree on the classification. Subjective or personal points of view may or may not agree on the classification, there is greater probability that there will not be mutually classifications of objective truth.

Hey Euclid, when are you going to start modeling this to yourself more dynamically?



Objective truths, if they are to hold that category in the mathematical and logical sense, are true to OUR point of view. The information is embedded in mutual agreement. The function of this truth is existence, the mutually observability of existence, and the law of identity and it's natural role it plays in our OBservation.

What seems clear to me from these is that you have a pretty basic failure to understand that objective statements that are classified as (iii - unknown) still have a truth value (true or false) even though you don't know what it is.

Flim, I'm sorry, but your being a doofus here. I mean your conceptualization and modeling of this problem truly is at a doofus level right now. This isnt an ad hom. I know you can do better. I am going to contradict your non argument here.

You're saying I am simply unable to parse in logical or rational meaning from the obvious truth that although my 1 1/2 year old son does not know what 2+2 is, the FACTS are that 2 + 2 = 4 is an existing truth value of OBJECTIVLY TRUE no matter what my son knows.

Do you really think I am that daft? I mean, come on, are you really assuming that OS 012 is about as thought through as a high school freshman's first draft on philosophy?

There is a higher order distinction going on here, at the meta-logical and meta linguistic level, and you don't see it yet. And then you project your own mental block on not seeing this onto fun lovin' ol bubblefish, and then assume for more than four years, I have made that same error regardless of the extreme amounts of time spent in contemplation and discussion on the matter!


It is irrelevant if unknowns are unique to some people at certain points in their existence. It is irrelevant if some unknowns are mutually shared. The relationship of unknown to true and false at the metalogical level is still functioning, it makes no difference.

You not knowing something does not qualify it as a mystery. Even if nobody knows the truth value of a statement it is still either true or false

Common statements that contradict your assertion. I am going to buy my house one day

Paradoxical statements that contradict your statement. This sentence is false

Philosophical statements that contradict your statement. At the moment of death, consciousness is flooded in pure bliss, and the last moment of being becomes an eternity

Scientific statements which contradict your statement. "We will live to be 1000".

No, objective statements refer to the real world, they may be false objective statements. But they still refer to things in the real world e.g., "whales are reptiles" is an objective, false statement.

yes, it is an objective, false statement. It also has a subjective component, unique to each viewing the statement and each making the statement.

so?

Firstly, if you remove all instances of "it is true that" from this drivel it leaves all the meaning intact.

You're waaaaaaaay missing the point. I didn't write that to write drivel, I was showing the meta-logical value operating in the statement by clarifying it into text. We often dont need to clarify the metalogical value when making statements at face value, it's assumed. It's so assumed that we forget we are making them.

Putting "it is true that" before everything does not constitute a new logical, semantic or epistemological breakthrough.

It constitutes meta logical clarification in simple child level text. It's meaning is SIMPLE to parse and perfectly clarified objectivly. It's the truth value exposed in language. It is perfectly true, there is no contradictory argument to it's existence that is rational.

Secondly, getting back to the point: this is straightforward garbage. That we cannot establish the truth value of a statement does not make it mysterious, it is still true or false e.g., Whales are either reptiles or they are not.

When we cannot establish something to hold either a true or false value in the certain sense, then the 'something' is mysterious. It can be nothing else other than mysterious.

For example, you're having a difficult time parsing the logical meaning of 'mystery'. You are unable to distinguish your reaction to the word 'mystery' from it's logical assosciation, unknown. Your framing your whole argument around your irrational reaction to unknown.

This pretty much sums up your embarrassing failure to even start making sense. The definition of an objective statement is that it is viewpoint-independent.

hmmm...objective statement =viewpoint, independent.

I'm sorry, I can't do much with that definition, to much is undefined. What is independent? to whom? clarify.


An objectivly TRUE statement is a statement that holds information that is perfectly mutually observable and empirical to all points of view. It's truth value is 'one for all'.

If a statement does not contain that distinction, then it is not objectivly true, but objectivly FALSE, or objectivly MYSTERIOUS.

Let's take the objective true statement "Whales are mammals." This is true from all viewpoints, and, crucially, even if there were nobody around to say or type "Whales are mammals" it would still be true because whales would still give birth to live young who they then suckle.

"whales are mammals" is a tautological structure, so it's true in logical form. We agree that whales are mammals because we agree that whales are mammals, we agree we call them mammals because we created a mutually observable table of species that functions as objectivly true when we study and apply it.

Thier existence and what they are in and of themselves, the 'ding an sich', is irrelevant nor dependent upon our truth values in language. There is no 'truth' out there, there only is what is, there is only truth in 'here' that we can agree upon.

Frankly if you don't understand and accept this then you are starting your argument from somewhere that is so logically and semantically bent that there's no point taking it any further.

if your so driving down dufus road in your doofus speedster and model this that way, then there is no point in talking to you til you either

A.) simply admit that you do not understand OS 012, nor how 'objective truths' function and are classified in this system of dialectic.

B.) start asking some honest questions and avoid assuming your knee jerk reactions mis interpretations are what is being communicated.

You're right on one thing though, I don't understand OS012.

exactly. So you dont know what your talking about when you prescribe such nonsensical meanings of objectivity to OS 012.

You've not presented it clearly and have spent 25+ pages defending its logical premises (unsuccessfully).

I have parsed it's meaning into the simplest of language that even a child can understand.

If it is an effective semantic or epistemological tool then show us some evidence because, frankly, that's the only hope it has left.

I have navigated this discussion across two continents, arguing with 40 + academically minded people, on over 100 pages of dialogue, and my arguments continue to advance rationally, logically. I am able to continue my discussion and show the contradictions or misidentifications in ALL rebuttals against it.

And I am refreshed, eager for more. I am learning and advancing my education at a quickend pace.

And finally: would you like to put it to a vote whether it's your arguments or my interpretations of them that are retarded?

I dont base my knowledge tree on popular vote, I base it on critical thinking, logic, reason, rationallity, honesty.

Did the popular decision to invade Iraq prove the existence of WMD?

Edit: Incidentally, a 2 x 2 logic still holds up, you saying that it doesn't work hardly constitutes a decent counter-argument.

it holds up to it's logical structure, it just is USELESS

Arkan, can you let us know what particular logical fallacy is please. It's basically the "Accept this as true or terrible things will happen" appeal.

are you mad?? nuts?? Since when have I been arguing for a belief structure, and when have I been arguing anyone to believe it?

You're clearly not paying attention. Please do some THINKING before you reply.


BF

 

[WWHP]

I feel we are reaching the point for Rome to attempt his "summing up" of the thread post. I can't wait!

me either!

there arnt that many arguments left, eh?

And don't forget he will always win.

absolutly! In the game of truth, i am always winning. When I make an error, I am corrected by my opponent in rational tit for tat, and win a new truth. When I advance my truth in tit for tat, i win again. I am indeed always winning, and my opponents are always helping me win. My opponent does not see that she is helping me win, and thus exposes to me their delusion.

If we argue with him it is because we find his ideas irrestistable and yet we are scared of them, so feel we have to argue against him.

if you say so.

If we leave or ignore him it is because we are unable to destroy his argument.

clearly, eh?

I propose the third value - it is a mystery why we all like banging our heads against a brick wall.

hehe, that would be your third value, yes, but it's certainly not mine! I can perfectly account for all of your behavior, it's really no mystery to me!


Lotsa Love,
Bubblefish