I’d happy settle for son of God. Turning water into wine is a nifty trick

Yup I considered this would be part of the counter-argument.

The answer, well my answer is this. As the mind is a product of the divine then the argument is this … and now I have to quote an old text…is it the bible ?

“Man was created in the image of God”

Edit: Genesis 1:27

Nice my line of thinking goes similar to yours in the post right above yours.

That is your conclusion frank. But again it’s subject to interpretation if there is only divine mind and we’re all manifestations of it then solipsism has a case.

Should I elaborate ?

Interesting. Though not fully versed with Berkeleys thought i get the general gist. But if you’re right in his representation of the idea of god then something needs to be said regarding coherence and predictability as you mentioned.

Coherence I take to as signifying meaning from the subjects point of view and where this falls short so does predictability as you put it.

Though meaning in terms of modern science can be subject to interpretation as per quantum mechanics or even relativity as postulated by Einstein but even this is not as strange as QM

Let me write a poem about the sea and feedback your interpretation of it:

Here goes nothing says the sea as splashes crashes against the siren.

The mermaid utters this cannot be for if I was a man
I’d destroy the boat the ship and land on the moat.

The sailor by boat reaching to wide casts his net for the final time though the boat bursting at seams finally gives way and now all the fish despite being dead give sharks something deeper than ocean can contemplate

The intention of the author and the meaning of it gleaned from the reader can reach congruence.

At the same time as you rightly pointed out new meaning can be added depending on the readers previous experience or preconception.

The same pretty much applies to most forms of artistic expression

A decent argument for vegetarianism which I am inclined to agree with however as a steakloving carnivore my choice of diet does not presuppose that the calf, sheep or lamb is less endowed in its capacity of emotion and or of pain.

If the animal is put down humanely then by it’s inability for it to question its existence or purpose does not alliviate guilt on my part then I should be greatful for the food put on my table.

It may indeed be the case in any case a blonde is fair in all states rich or poor.

If a man loves a woman but the woman only loves the man for the money thats not love. Although it could be in fair circumstances.

Power plus money = influence I guess.

But towards what values…western ones I hope

Can you really put a price on love ?

It might buy you everything on earth but not love.

Power and the illusion of power is something of an everyday occurrence within the corporate world and I even include banking industry here.

After large acquisition of wealth the mismanagement of it ultimately betrays the illusion

It’s an outdated trait and hoarding can be unhealthy not just for self but others

Delusion

The corruption of power is evil for it can no longer be called power.

I get you. Regardless of the antinatalists personal opinion … children will be born regardless.

Unless of course he was in charge of the planet then there’d be no next generation and humans would all but disappear after their lifespan ends.

Next species to evolve on the planet after the antinatalists dream is achieved is squirrels, possibly pigeons but most likely cats…purrrrr

Meow!

A lot of people are born to parents unfit to raise them. This does not negate the child’s argument for antinatalism.

If such parent subjected its offspring to unimaginable abuse and suffering then the child has the right to ask the question.

But another question the child might also ask is why the hell was my mum or dad born but most importantly…couldn’t they afford a condom?

The way I see the antinatalism debate is this.

1. I am not happy therefore I should not have been born.

2. Non-existence is the alternative proposed although it comes to late after the fact you were born.

3. As time machines do not exist anti-Natalism is not possible.

4. Suffering can be alleviated through various morphine’s or other drugs.

5. Suicide is then worth considering if the physical pain prohibits the body from any pain relief.

What are the consequences upon obtaining conclusive proof that we live in a simulation?

Also what is the first question you would ask the designer of such a simulation?

Another question if this world is simulated and corresponds in law to the real world that created it then does it really matter if it is a simulation?

As far as I see it any criticism of democracy inevitably a by product of free speech is for it to adjust its leadership in that where pre-existing interests and conflicts of interest are exposed by the voter to the point of adjustment I.e. new leadership, head of state etc. reshuffling of cabinet etc.

As for capitalism well it in its unlimited exertion of influence by various corporate interests will always have a say in the legislative nature of democracy via various forms of lobbying or even bribes.

Ridiculous.

Calculus was developed well before set theory came into the scene. Also in the field of mathematics it’s nothing more than a minor development/distraction

The other thing is and something that Turing possibly missed is the use of parallel algorithms…which the halting problem could be solved.

Take the instance a program that aims to output an infinate number such as Pi … it will run and not halt.

However with well defined input paramters the problem of it is easily solved.

It was an inference Tones, albeit an implied one at that. I saw where keystone was getting at.

If I am throwing red herrings it’s because i have surplus fish and you have earned yourself a fish. It’s got omega 3 and good for you.

And most certainly would make you less cranky and grumpy.

A pint did you say ? I will happily accept a Guiness

He’s referring to the halting problem in relation to turings complete machine

Then there will exemptions to the first statement.

There could exist such a place where a teetotaller abstains from drinking on all occasions apart from when he unknowingly drinks alcohol because his wife can’t be trusted.

This then proves that a teetotaller is drunk and it follows that also a troller.

Your logic has been found wanting.

Consider the statement

All bachelors are unmarried men.

That is watertight and contains truth as it’s self referential.

Do you claim that teatotallers are not drunktrollers ?

If so I am ready to destroy the above argument.

Infinitesimals are rigorously handled in non-standard analysis. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Please back this up before I declare it a nonsensical flippant assertion.

<> means does not equal. A revaluation of facts and reality is required on your part

I’m talking about the premise:

A teatotaller <> drunktroller

Your mistake in coming up with the above argument was to presume the subject was drunk from the predicate.

A teetotaler can't be a drunktroller. — TonesInDeepFreeze

False premise.

Premise presumes to know about the subjects drinking habits.

Who is the crank now ?

The point is not to insult, but rather to flag the situation. Usually cranks are not trolls, since they are sincere, though horribly self-misguided. But I take you as a troll since you don't even offer arguments but just simple flippant nonsense. — TonesInDeepFreeze

This is unbecoming of a Logician Tones. First you called me a crank troll but in the above statement I’m only referred to as troll.

Which is it ?

https://www.memedroid.com/memes/detail/3284903/Clown-to-clown-communication

I understand you better. This then appears to be crank to crank communication at its finest.

Also tones your custom way of insulting is to belittle the other guy by calling them either troll or crank but here you’ve basketed the two together.

Better a than a drunk troller.

Happy for any label at this point. However as a logician yourself give yourself the imaginative prowes to scrutinise the above statement and where proof is warranted … provide it.

I could simply call you an unimaginative logical troll by the same token.

But I won’t.

Dichotomy Paradox

Very simple Tones. A theory that is not flexible enough to allow for operations which would render the theory useless.

I am not. Set theory is self-limiting in the way the theory is formulated.