Update

Epistemology, logic, morality, and avidya (deserves to be mentioned separately from the first item in this list?). What's the connection?

Siddhartha Gautama, Socrates, Aristotle/Chrysippus, Kant/Bentham-Mill, Gettier, Dice/Coins/Roulettes...how are they all linked?

If I start throwing out terms like enantidromia (which funnily enough has a red squiggly line under it!) I think that is less tangible than what I may wish to get across.

My vocabulary is above average as I have a love of language and I'm far enough past juvenile years to have naturally amalgamated a quarry of terms and phrases into a broad enough lexicon. — I like sushi

It will always be nebulous because as far as I can tell there isn't a form of communication available to express what I mean (or rather there is a lack of concepts OR I just haven't found them yet OR I'm too far gone to recognise them) — I like sushi

:up: Like someone in the old forum said to a rather persistent/tenacious theist, paraphrasing, "you're privy to information we're not." Good to know someone's having fun! Superb!

Fuzzy logic in lived life not in abstract realms. — I like sushi

That, I'm told, was the purpose of fuzzy logic - nonbinary people, some animals too I'm sure. Experience has taught us to not think in 0s and 1s. Despite our urge to think in yeses and nos, many a times the actual answer is maybe.

I'm not omnipotent — I like sushi

Is it a requirement? :chin:

what do you mean? — I like sushi

Indeed. So, what do you mean?

We're going off-topic. Thank you for the conversation. It was interesting. If you feel that you have anything specific to say regarding the OP do post. If I can I'll try and respond. Keep an eye out for updates from me.

Good day I like sushi.

I didn't. but clearly I did to you as you're using the term 'mathematically' in a rather specific and rather unusual sense. — I like sushi

Unusual? Look who's talking!

You've made leprechauns part of the domain by presupposing the predicate "...is a leprechaun".

That is, fictional species are part of the conversation, so you can talk about them in your scheme.

In free logic leprechauns would not be members of the domain of things that exist - E!. But you could still make inferences about them.

However as noted above, you could not infer their existence, even in free logic.

In classical logic, to make the inference you would have to presume the predicate "... is a leprechaun". How you understand that predicate remains moot; and one can play on that ambiguity. — Banno

Free logic, as far as I can tell, seems to have an issue with the existential quantifier because, taking the fictional statement "some unicorn ate my lunch", translating that would require a committment we can't (afford to) make viz. existence. The translation of the above example statement is $(\exists x)(Ux \wedge Ax)$ where Ux = x is a unicorn and Ax = x ate my lunch.

Free logic would, in my humble opinion, open up the world of fiction - Tolkein's works, Doyle's works, etc. - to logical analysis.

You say that's not all free logic can do. It seems that you're under the impression that with free logic we can begin an analysis of a given domain of objects and then, almost miraculously, switch the topic to something outside that domain. I'm not sure I understood you correctly but if this is what you mean, what's the point, really? It appears to be something but, in fact, it is, I suspect, nothing. I'm out!

My 'position' is not crystallised nor do I wish it to be. — I like sushi

:up: I like that (attitude)!

I can dumb it down and state some points regarding ontology and epistemology? — I like sushi

Please do. I'm all ears...er...eyes...and also...all thumbs. Don't expect me to endorse your point of view but if you feel like sharing it, by all means, be my guest.

It will always be nebulous because as far as I can tell there isn't a form of communication available to express what I mean (or rather there is a lack of concepts OR I just haven't found them yet OR I'm too far gone to recognise them) — I like sushi

I feel like that sometimes. Made me feel special on a number of occasions - I can think in ways for which there are no words in any frigging language I know. It turns out my vocab was wanting - you hardly realize the depth and breadth of a language until you sit down with a dictionary, a good one that is.

Returning to what you said, mathematically ontology = epistemology, I do have a rather nebulous intuition of what you're gettin' at; after all, all said and done, knowledge, the vast majority of what's presented to us as knowledge, is ontological in character.

The only problem with your point of view, if it is a problem at all, is that the rationale seems to be, for lack of a better term, fuzzy-logic based. That's my diagnosis anyway. You're fully entitled to a second/third/nth opinion of course.

Now the prognosis: A blurry/grainy picture of the sum total of all things. Not to worry! That's probably the way life should be lived!

I prefer sex to porn (i.e. playing guitar to button-mashing Guitar Hero). — 180 Proof

Me too but I haven't seen much action for quite a while now, if you know what I mean. :grin:

Guitar, I've tried and...failed (miserably). I'm tone deaf, came to know about it after about 5 years of trying to learn the damn instrument.

:chin: Virtual reality...looks like it's meant for people like me who have to imagine having a good time. :sad:

Good to know you're doing well in life. Keep it up, good sir!

Your position is, well, pixelized. It's rather vague, perhaps even too vague. You field a lot of never-before-heard (at least I haven't encountered them in the 5 or 6 years on this forum) phrases and make claims that seem rather bizarre but, as in the other thread we had a discussion in, your posts are low on necessary details. Could be me though. Good day.

So you agree plastic is nature, but it takes 450years to decompose. But this is my opinion if you make unreal image there is nature and unnatural, how you would not be exploitative ? The premise is there is not such a thing as unnatural - the unreal game in our heads are a problem. Do you agree ? — Nothing

A couple of months, perhaps half-a-year ago, I had a thought about man-made stuff. You know as well as I do that economics - money really - runs the show. Everybody these days, as I discovered to my dismay (not because it's wrong but because I'm not rich), valuates on the basis of dollars i.e. the immediate reaction to anything - from relationships to Mars missions - is to ask "how much is it?"

Mind you I'm not entirely certain about this but the economic machinery, and therefore our very existence, depends on the constant flow of cash. Ergo, we need people to constantly buy merchandise. One easy way of doing that is to make products less durable - fragile and, here's where it gets interesting, decomposable. That way, people will have to keep replenishing their stocks as household items have a shelf-life like food does.

Yet, what's puzzling, what sells is durability; a selling point for many products is how they're, well, "unbreakable". You can imagine what that would mean to many businesses/companies - less/no sales $\rightarrow$ bankruptcy (I'm probably oversimplifying but you get the idea).

This then is our dilemma: Companies need people to keep on buying their commodities year after year but then they have to make them robust and damage-resistant to attract customers which then causes sales to decline. Either regular revenues or make high-quality products (more durable). If companies opt for the former, quality will be affected. If the latter is chosen, revenues will fall. That's why many, actually all, companies that depend on sales have opted same strategy - keep upgrading the features, increase in every way possible the capabilities, of their products. Think iPhone!

Just a thought...

Just take a look around on this forum... I guess you saw that one coming.

I don't understand what your intentions are here. The first thing that came up in my mind though was a character jumping up 12 levels for no apparent reason. Turned out to be caused by a cosmic particle entering the undermoony from the celestial sphere. Causing a 1 or 0 in the memory to flip.

Now if that ain't magic. — Cartuna

:grin: Fascinating! Keep it coming! Keep it coming!

You die body goes to earth — Nothing

This'll be my key premise.

All things that fall under the category natural are recycled by the forces of nature - living/nonliving - and these processes occur in timeframes that's humanly appreciable (decomposition/putrefecation/etc) However, man-made stuff (plastic/metal) are not part of this reusing scheme of nature's. That's what makes man and man-made things unnatural.

There are, as always, exceptions to this rather simple rule but the rationale is statistical i.e. outliers are ignored.

To all logicians (pro & amateur)

What's the difference between

1. Buddhism is (just) Realism.

and

2. Realism is (just) Buddhism?

Thanks in advance.

Aquinas called the Omnipotence of God the "Primary Cause", — Gnomon

Food for thought:

Why there is something rather than...

$\lim_{p \rightarrow \infty} P(a) = 100 \%$

Where,

p = potentiality, a = actuality. P(a) = probability of an actuality (something)

Nothing has infinite potentiality.

[Infinite potentiality = (God's) omnipotence!]

Ergo,

Something will actualize.

:100:

I've played my share of video games but I haven't seen any that violate the law of noncontradiction in-game. Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention.

If only it'd enable virtual diarrhoea. — baker

Jokes aside, virtual biology.

Shit.. it's like we all copied each other's answers in a high school test. :joke: — Tom Storm

:lol:

Virtual philosophy — TheMadFool

Anybody here have any idea on that?

... and jiggling! — onomatomanic

:lol: Realistic!

The lightning has an effect (damage); insofar as the target is concerned, the electricity discharged into his body is real.

If only it'd enable virtual diarrhoea. — baker

10/10 for keeping it real. 0/10 for everything else.

Oh, I forgot! I did say

• Virtual <insert anything you want>

Sloppy. As. Fuck — 180 Proof

I did all I could. It's all in God's hands now. :rofl:

a solution in search of a problem — 180 Proof

:up: :chin:

No "paradox", Fool, just more sloppy "thinking". — 180 Proof

How is it not a paradox? A gravity-obeying machine can generate a world (the simulation) where gravity-defying feats can be accomplished.

I can use the laws of nature to violate the laws of nature.

I'm an (antitheist) atheist and I've made many posts arguing against the PoE. Also, the phrase "this world is the best of all possible worlds" makes no modal sense to me insofar as I'm an actualist (which means I reject 'possibilism' (i.e. possible world semantics) or 'modal realism'). Your 'simulation ad absurdum', Fool, is besides the point, even incoherent as a solution in search of a problem — 180 Proof

My idea is too simple to be incoherent. My challenge to antitheists/atheists is to get together a team (what kind of experts you pick is at your discretion) and tell 'em to build a virtual universe from scratch that fits the description of heaven/paradise/swarga. Can they do it? Is a simulation of heaven possible? If it is possible then I concede there's a problem of evil but if such isn't possible (say heaven simulations keep crashing i.e. no programming language can support such a world), there is no problem of evil and this world is the best of all possible worlds.

What I want to go into, inter alia, is virtual physics - it enables magic (fantasy games) and über-advanced technology (superhero and space genres).

• Virtual philosophy
• Virtual chemistry
• Virtual biology
• Virtual <insert anything you want>

That would be thought-determinism in a nutshell, wouldn’t it? :grin: — Paul Michael

I dunno!

THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER. — Multivac (The Last Question)

The simulated agents within the simulated world cannot "break its rules" – change the program. Real agents are not subject to the enabling-constraints of their simulations. No "paradox", just sloppy "thinking". — 180 Proof

I never claimed that simulated "agents" can break the rules of the virtual world they're in; nevertheless, I've seen hilarious and annoying as hell glitches in games.

Simplistic — 180 Proof

Simplistic? How would you have it be then?

thoughts occur linearly through time in succession. — Paul Michael

That's a good point! So-called random thoughts may actually be linked, Think of faucets - there are many in the house and prima facie it would seem that these faucets are completely independent of each other but...beneath the walls...a network of pipes connect them all.

Failure to see an association between thoughts is not the same as there being none.

Imagine now the first thought you ever had (I'm about 99% certain that you won't recall it), itself initiated by factors beyond your control, set the ball rolling and you are what you are (thought-wise) because of that first thought!

What's it gonna take for us to come to our senses?
— TheMadFool
Immorbidity. — 180 Proof

:up:

The program rules simulate a physics for a simulated world. Simulation programs themselves, however, must be consistent with real world physics (e.g. Universal Turing machines). — 180 Proof

This in itself is a paradox: We can break the laws of nature in a simulation even though the very code, the very machine running the code for that very simulation have to abide by them. It's like a cop telling a citizen to do something illegal.

:up:

Don't change the subject Answer my last question first. — 180 Proof

Not intentional.

Atheists (I'm agnostic) are of the view that there's a problem - the problem of evil - and that, if one extrapolates from there, implies that they've conceived of a better world.

I say I agree - we can, more accurately believe we can, imagine a better world (it goes by many names - heaven, paradise, swarga, a "better" place).

If so, given the above, this is the challenge: Simulate such a world (heaven/paradise/swarga) in cyberspace (we've got a whole bunch of simulated worlds - video games - for helpful hints). My logic is simple: if heaven can be simulated then indeed the problem of evil is legit and on point but if it turns out that paradise simulations always crash and are glitchy, this world we live in is the best of all possible worlds.

Why did the man’s friend die?

It depends on your beliefs how you express your answer. The answer could be ‘he died because he was born, he died because his friend was wrongly accused of stealing at work, he died because not enough oxygen was getting to his brain, he died because he betrayed his friend, etc.,. — I like sushi

The word "etc." makes it even more interesting than it already is. Depending on what beliefs one subscribes to, the justification explanation also differs.

‘Knowledge’ (outside known sets of rules and limits) is always driven by ‘belief’ which is in turn framed by ‘truth attitudes’ (how we actively appeal to evidence and how we define evidence). — I like sushi

Care to share the details of your theory as regards "how we define evidence"?

Abstractions — I like sushi

Abstractions are the basis of knowledge in most cases. They're basically patterns and nature is chockablock with them. Particular instances are identified as being part of some general pattern.

The definition of knowledge as JTB is an abstraction/pattern that, for some, made the most sense.

‘Stupidity’ is the genius of humanity - as in it is an ‘ethical’ way to do ‘unethical’ human experimentation. — I like sushi

Excelente! The plot thickens...

stating that ontology is just the same thing as epistemology — I like sushi

Keep going...

One thing we know about humans. They will adjust their view more if new facts favour them, yet they will not adjust as much for facts that don’t favour them. We are ‘hard-wired’ like this. — I like sushi

Too bad, so sad. :up:

Then there are those that clamour over ‘knowledge’ and dismiss ‘belief’ outright … which is a bizarre ‘belief’ to hold for someone claiming to logical and rationa — I like sushi

It should be the other way round, right?

P. S. Some people get it wrong not because they're stupid but because fortune didn't favor them. Just as luck can, like in Gettier cases, lead you to the truth, it should, in my humble opinion, depending on how unlucky you are, make you arrive at the wrong conclusion. Luck has no inferential significance to truth.

I'm happy with the limited version of free will we have. I call it the It could be worse argument for free will. Just imagine yourself as an ordinary man on the Clapham omnibus. You've got more freedom than a man coerced to act in a certain specified way, say with a cocked gun's muzzle pressed against your temple and a finger wrapped around the trigger.

Good analysis! :up:

will just have a cold war with them until they tire of this as well.. — dclements

I'm hoping this'll happen sooner or later. Individuals usually get tired of the toys they have - they get bored and what was before an exciting plaything becomes dull and fails to evoke the, thrilling as hell, dopamine rush.

Good for the resident artificial consciousnesses.
— TheMadFool
How would we (the simulation makers) know that? — 180 Proof

If memory serves you did complain, on numerous occasions, about how bad the situation was/is on our beloved planet. You called mother nature a bitch - telling no?

Our story begins In Media Res. Record of the past is incomplete and fragmentary, the future is an opaque fog, visibility down to a few minutes. — TheMadFool

This gives me an idea. The usual manner in which aircraft pilots report on visibility is in terms of distance but I feel a more helpful way would be in terms of time for the simple reason that when moving at speeds aircrafts do reaction time is more important.

"Good" for whom? — 180 Proof

Good for the resident artificial consciousnesses.