Skepticism and The Normal

[Professor Yaffle]

My work here is done!

Prof. Yaffle, are you still languishing in Geordieland? How long until you can play Fentiman's Discombobulator on geoman's Morden?

Nobody has made a move since I got stuck, so I still have to wait 3 moves, unless of course you would help me out by voluntarily going in knip?

 

[WWHP]

Bubba, you can use two different definitions of a word and treat them as if they were one and the same in a logical framework.

Can't get clear on your meaning here, can you provide a refrence or example?

We are talking about the concept of "truth" and using the words true and false as they relate to that concept.

agreed. the problem is that your ambiguous understanding of true and false is predicated on some 'assumptions' that is deeply entrenched into your thinking.

Your understanding of 'true' is based soley on it's relationship with it's logical and natural opposition, 'false'. Yet your understanding of 'false' is that it's 'not true'.

So you can't just substitute a different definition of the word false into the argument as if it is the same as the first definition.

Here is something that is going to rack your brains until you get it. I do not 'redefine' false, rather, the definition, usage, and 'meaning' of false is UPDATED metalogically. false is still 'not true' in OS 012. It gives us a broader understanding of false, not a different definition.

I can say this so much that I can even say that it's YOU who is using a different definition of false at the metalogical level. You have a false idea about false.

You are doing exactly that when you use the meaning of false = 'not' or not real,

I have never defined false as 'not real'. Rather, false is NOT A=A, rather, false is A=B.

eg - as in false nails, false teeth, false dawn etc and insert it into a discussion about truth and then try to manipulate it - taking its opposite as "true" which has gone back to the original set of meanings.

True and false cannot exist without one another. We cannot have a true or false idea in any meaning of the term and not have it's compliment on hand, it's neither logical nor natural to have one without the other.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

It doesnt make sense because YOU ARE CONFUSED AT THE METALOGICAL LEVEL. That's why.

QM doesnt make sense to me either, I dont assume it's the fault of Max Plank.

And therefore it makes a nonsense of all your arguments.

therefore, you still, after a few months of repeated reading and response to my posts, have failed to understand them.


BF

 

[flimflam_machine]

Nobody has made a move since I got stuck, so I still have to wait 3 moves, unless of course you would help me out by voluntarily going in knip?

And waste a perfectly good Dubois' jump? Not likely!

 

[flimflam_machine]

QM doesnt make sense to me either, I dont assume it's the fault of Max Plank.

We have evidence for QM, and it's evidently useful.

And therefore it makes a nonsense of all your arguments.

therefore, you still, after a few months of repeated reading and response to my posts, have failed to understand them.

Because they are nonsense.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

(note to self - next time someone shows my arguments to make no sense but I don't want to admit it even to myself, just reply "Ah, but it's metalogical". That should work.)

 

[WWHP]

To you, yes. Maybe not to me, and in isolation the statement is simply subjective.

Of course maybe not to you, that is how it's subjective. And statements in isolation? huh? how is that even possible? OS 012 accounts for all statements in all environments. If you have found someway to make a statement isolated from a point of view, please clue me in.

What's maths got to do with this specific query anyway?

Because if you stay consistant with your bivalent logic, you will produce a contradiction. Yet you are avoiding dealing with that contradiction, why?

If something is subjectively true, what then is it's distinguishable and logical complement?

Clarify please.

If there is a subjectively true idea, such as; "Jesus Christ is the messiah for all humanity and this is a scriptual truth", what is it's natural and logical anti-thesis?

Simply the statement; 'Jesus Christ was not the messiah, and this is a Jewish scriptual truth "

If a truth is intended in statement, and it's contradiction negates it, doesn't that make statement A objectively false by default?

 

[WWHP]

We have evidence for QM, and it's evidently useful.

It's useful because it helps us accuratly map reality and doesnt appear to produce contradictions inside of it's sphere of relevance.

Because they are nonsense.

If OS 012 is non sense, that would include a value that it produces contradictions with reality, which you still have failed to show.

Let me put it to you this way. What would prove QM to be 'false' would be contradictions with it's propositions in describing quantum events. You dont, however, prove QM wrong when you base it on your misunderstanding of QM.

 

[WWHP]

(note to self -

already deceptive, this is not a note to yourself, this is a damage control post written in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

meaning you havent found any reason yet to rebut my last statements.

next time someone shows my arguments to make no sense but I don't want to admit it even to myself, just reply "Ah, but it's metalogical". That should work.)

I show you how your arguments dont make any sense USING LOGIC, your own BIVALENT LOGIC. And you naturally will resort back to your ad hom algorithm.

Stop projecting wee_eck. It is you whom is resisting the higher ordering truth here.

 

[flimflam_machine]

If you have found someway to make a statement isolated from a point of view, please clue me in.

Funnily enough most people have no problem understanding the idea that there are some statements whose truth value does not depend on subjective experience. I have no idea how to convince you of this, since you have real trouble dealing with really simple concepts like the meaning of "true" and "false" inside a philosphical discussion.

If a truth is intended in statement, and it's contradiction negates it, doesn't that make statement A objectively false by default?

I'm ignoring the bizarrely complex example you've chosen since it's an obvious attempt to muddy the waters. Pick something simpler.

All statements have negations: London buses are blue vs. London buses are not blue; AJ is beautiful vs. Aj is not beautiful.

What does that have to do with the truth value of the statement?

I'm also wait for you to point out the contradiction that we're arriving at through bivalency, and an explanation of how language can contradict reality.

 

[flimflam_machine]

If OS 012 is non sense, that would include a value that it produces contradictions with reality, which you still have failed to show.

"Include a value"? What in the name of arse does that mean? English man, English!

"Smig nurfle baddoooodi munchniggy!"

Prove that that "contradicts reality". You can't, because it's just words. Words that we can choose to mean anything. It's still obviously nonsense though.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

"Smig nurfle baddoooodi munchniggy!"

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!

 

[flimflam_machine]

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!

Obviously the charming Prof. Yaffle is excepted. In any case I only indulge at weekends when there is an "r" in the month.

 

[WWHP]

Your first phrase deals with the opinions of an unspecified group of people. It might or might not be true, and is certainly objective. If you used a group of people that hate sunsets as your sample, you might find that your statement is not, in fact, true.

What if I used the entire set 'people' in refrence to 'all of us'?

They key to it being objective is that it uses something that could in fact be quantified and observed.

Once again, then how is "Newspaper Taxi's appeared on the shore, waiting to take me away." an objective statement?

Can you please account for this contradiction inside of your personal framework for 'objective'?

You haven't included enough information to determine the truth of your statement, but it is theoretically possible if you specified who considered sunsets beautiful.

I state that for all of humanity. 'Sunsets are considered beautiful'. No matter what happens with group x that hates sunsets and kittens, the statement 'Sunsets are considered beautiful' is still true and operating as true, and nothing that group x could say or think could change that observation for other people.

Your second statement is subjective. The implication is that the person making the statement believes Angelina Jolie is beautiful.

I am stating that Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman is an objective statement, meaning, that when i stop believing Angelina Jolie is beautiful, she will still be beautiful.

That depends entirely on the thinker's definition of beautiful.

Let's use the standard definition. "Having qualities that delight the senses, especially the sense of sight."

Hence, it is a product of the subject doing the thinking, not the object of thought.

So Angelina Jolie's beauty has nothing to do with her symmetry, lips, eyes, flush cheeks, and slinky composition?

Although it does, in fact, include an object of thought, it does not include words that can be precisely quantified without resorting to the opinion of the thinker.

Regardless of anyone's opinion, Angelina Jolie will still be beautiful and considered beautiful by other people.

Notice how she is defined in Wikipedia, which is instructed to give an objective viewpoint on the subject matter.

Angelina Jolie (born June 4, 1975) is an American film actress, a former fashion model, and a Goodwill Ambassador for the UN Refugee Agency. She is often cited by popular media as one of the world's most beautiful women and her off-screen life is widely reported. She has received three Golden Globe Awards, two Screen Actors Guild Awards, and an Academy Award.

does this not highlight your contradiction?

You don't appear to know what objective and subjective mean in terms of how everyone else speaking English uses the words, or you refuse to use those meanings for some reason.

Well in case you have not figured it out yet, there is nothing standard about usage of objective and subjective, it's only standard is ambiguous.

The only standard we could consider to be 100% factual is the dictionary, and my usage does not contradict the dictionary. The only further possible consideration we could give to the standard usage of objective and subjective would be journalism, which clearly reflects the ambiguity of those terms in common language.

Also, you fail to consider that if my definitions are so different from common meaning, how is it then that OS 012 would still produce logically complimentary values to statements as would bivalent logic? Meaning, I am producing NO contradictions to reality, so how is it possible then my definitions could be so different if this is the case?


BF

 

[Basilio]

Alright, enough fun, back to business.
To counter (in 2 transfers) I use the Vert-vert stratigem and go with:

Benthal Green

(but under the 1978 revisions, I still have a foothold for Gare St. Lazar, with only a loss of one point within The City)

 

[flimflam_machine]

Notice how she is defined in Wikipedia, which is instructed to give an objective viewpoint on the subject matter.

Still not worked out that there's a difference between objectivity in journalism and objectivity in philosophy eh Bubb?

I use the Vert-vert stratigem and go with:

Benthal Green

The "vert-vert stratagem", pah! 'Tis but a pretentious version of the green-green strategy! But since you're using my passing jump through Gare du Nord as an excuse to annexe Gare St. Lazar I shall have hurry in securing another main-line acquisition of Gare Montparnasse. Of course this means that I relinquish Liverpool Street allowing Prof. Yaffle back onto the primary board but that's a small price to pay!

 

[WWHP]

"Include a value"? What in the name of arse does that mean?

umm, have we not been talking about truth VALUES this whole time? Considering we have been discussing truth VALUES for some three months now, what would you assume I mean?

"Smig nurfle baddoooodi munchniggy!

Prove that that "contradicts reality".

How are you defining "Smig nurfle baddoooodi munchniggy"? I can only answer your question if you define the term.

You can't, because it's just words.

I can when the words 'mean' something, either relative to us or relative to an individual.

Words that we can choose to mean anything.

fine, then what do you mean by "Smig nurfle baddoooodi munchniggy"?

It's still obviously nonsense though.

ahhh, so "Smig nurfle baddoooodi munchniggy" = nonsense. That's how you defined the term.

And yes, what we call nonsense is that which typically is contradictory to common human objective observation.

Cleary-0?

BF

 

[WWHP]

Still not worked out that there's a difference between objectivity in journalism and objectivity in philosophy eh Bubb?

it's not the differences that are relevant in this discussion, it's WHAT THEY BOTH SHARE IN COMMON WHICH IS.

So over the weekend, while your thinking about all of this somemore, ask yourself what does OBJECTIVETY have 'shared' or what is 'mutually observable' about 'objective' in both PHILOSOPHY and JOURNALISM.

to give yourself more of an excercise, try thinking about it in terms of what 'objective' means in THEORY (philosophy) and PRACTICE (journalism)

knock yourself out, enjoy your weekend. Please come back refreshed.


BF

 

[WWHP]

Funnily enough most people have no problem understanding the idea that there are some statements whose truth value does not depend on subjective experience.

This is contradictory with Empiricism. What gives something is objective value is it is mutually subjectively experienced.

I have no idea how to convince you of this, since you have real trouble dealing with really simple concepts like the meaning of "true" and "false" inside a philosphical discussion.

You have no idea of how to convince me of it because you have no rational way to explain your argument.

Note: A true idea can be rationalized and explained from many distinguishable points of view. A false idea has a very limited number of possible rationalizations.

I'm ignoring the bizarrely complex example you've chosen since it's an obvious attempt to muddy the waters. Pick something simpler.

ahhh, to much complexity for your bivalent thinking, eh?

All statements have negations: London buses are blue vs. London buses are not blue; AJ is beautiful vs. Aj is not beautiful.

all sentences have negations because all ideas are in conflict or have the potential for conflict, yes.

What does that have to do with the truth value of the statement?

it's truth value cannot be considered outside of it's logical negation, it would not exist as true without it.

I'm also wait for you to point out the contradiction that we're arriving at through bivalency, and an explanation of how language can contradict reality.

language in and of itself is not contradictory to reality, in and of itself, language or knowledge is 0. it's becomes either logical with reality or contradictory it terms of how we use it to model reality. When you model reality soley on bivalent thinking, contradictions are produced which are verifiably false within the same bivalent framework that you are using.

When confronted with this contradiction, you are tossing out your bivalent logic and then jumping to philosophy, which is equally contradictory because your philosophy is also structured in bivalent thinking.

 

[jimbob]

meaning you havent found any reason yet to rebut my last statements.

I imagine that you mean "refute" not rebut.

I can think of *many* reasons to rebut any statements that you make.

I can not refute specific arguments until I am made aware of them.

Is this an appropriate translation:

meaning that you haven't found any reasoning that refutes my last statements.

?

Just trying to help further the understanding of standard English


Jim

Basilio:

I think it is appropriate to play Barking at this stage.

 

[jimbob]

Damn, Flimflam beat me to it,

unless I can get out en-passant...