But it occupied my mind through a boring conference, so there's that. — Hanover

I draw cartoons of the speakers going "blah blah blah."

I'm happy to leave it here. — Ludwig V

:up:

Maybe even think of it this way: you know how to do plus or quus in the way you know how to ride a bike, not in the way you know that Sydney is in Australia. — Banno

Might just leave it here. :smile:

And yet we enact rules. — Banno

There's no fact regarding which rules. It's a mind bender for sure. It took me a good while to digest the implications.

Sure, if what you mean is that the rule cannot be stated. But that is irrelevant, since the rule can be enacted. — Banno

There's no fact regarding which rules you've been enacting.

Yet, there are things we can point to and say "See, this is the rule I've been following". — Ludwig V

I doubt it

If Kripke were correct, you would not know how to count, — Banno

This shows a misunderstanding of Kripke's point. There's no denying that we do things with words, and that we do on occasion follow rules. There's just no fact regarding what rules you've been following up till now. If you think you know the rules you've been following, you need to take a closer look at the PLA.

What gives meaning to rules is human agreement in the context of human life. Think of how the fact that we agree on how to use words is enough to make them words. (This fact is, perhaps, not a fact of the matter, but it is a fact nonetheless.) What often gets left out of this is that we sometimes find that we don't agree on how to apply our rules; so we have to make a decision about how to go on. — Ludwig V

There's just nothing you can point to and say, "See, this is the rule I've been following for the use of this phrase."

If we’re talking about Wittgenstein on rule-following here, then there is no intelligible meaning without rules, criteria, forms of life. — Joshs

The Private Language argument indicates that there's no way for you to know what rules you've been following up till now. Check out Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language by Saul Kripke.

Or better, there's no fact of the matter about what rules you've been following.

This is a fascinating story involving the transcription of Babylonian abacus results.
— frank
I was fascinated by this, but I couldn't find anything specifically on it, — Ludwig V

Check out Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea by Charles Siefe. It's pretty good.

If the rules of a language game make rational numbers intelligible, then isnt it a new set of rules that make irrationals intelligible? — Joshs

It's a fiction that meaning arises from rule-following. There's no fact of the matter regarding what rules you've followed up til now.

One third of 1 is 0.33333...........continuing to infinity.

If we altered our numbering system, such that we replaced 1 by 3, then one third of 3 is 1. This avoids any problem of infinity. — RussellA

I don't understand how we could replace 1 by 3. That doesn't make any sense. But with the new numbering system, 1/3 would be 1/5.

How did we get real numbers from rational number — T Clark

They were first discovered by the Pythagoreans. They were horrified by them though. They aggressively suppressed the knowledge of irrational numbers per legend. If it was an invention, it was not a welcome one. How do we explain that?

How did we get zero? — T Clark

This is a fascinating story involving the transcription of Babylonian abacus results.

This thread puts on display the way people try to escape from wonder. They assume a conclusion when they don't actually know any facts that support it. Psychic protection strategy?

It is my understanding that all mathematics is based on counting, but there are many, many instances where it has gone beyond it. — T Clark

How did that happen? If it's based on counting, how did it give rise to things that can't be counted?

Yep. It's an extension of "the world is al that is the case". — Banno

That's just blatant idealism.

Well, tell us something particular that we cannot know.. — Banno

You asserted P
When I asked for your justification, you said
"Why not P?"

Does that sound rational to you?

Interesting thing is that while we cannot know everything, there is (arguably) nothing in particular that we could not know. — Banno

Why not?

there is no true way to expresa pi is all... — DifferentiatingEgg

There's no way to know all the digits that go on it. I think you can express the concept by just saying "pi."

What are you saying? That pi never ends?

Yeah we can. the ratio of the radius tot eh circumference of a circle; that i it exactly and entirely. There are other ways to say the same thing, such as the aforementioned mentioned smallest positive number where the sine function is equal to zero or π=ln(−1)/i from Euler's identity or Cd/2LP for Buffon’s Needle or any number of other neat-o calculations. — Banno

Funny thing is, if I'd started a thread that said we can know pi in its entirety, you would have said that ridiculous. :confused:

Wasn't it already obvious that we could never know anything completely? — Janus

I didn't get that memo. Why not?

Which joke - that π is beyond our grasp — Banno

It's not a joke. It goes on forever, so you can never know it completely.

Redditors angry. — NOS4A2

Especially after they banned all the Trump supporters. :lol:

Well, here we are, talking about π - so, no, it is not beyond our grasp... — Banno

Just as the index finger can grasp the coffee cup by the little handle, the mind grasps pi by the bits we know.

I didn't realize that quote in the OP came from an AI. :lol: Don't worry, it was just a thought that popped up while I was cleaning house.

And of whom else do we have such pictures? — tim wood

This is a really distasteful topic.

But even then, anecdotal evidence in a single economic activity leads you to making general claims about regulation in these respective economic regions — Benkei

Did you want a list of the things I can't do that everyone else in the world can?

Nonsense — Benkei

It's been my experience as a day trader.

They say that being struck by lightning is a good thing.

if we can't make sense of the notion of free will logically, — Hanover

Just depends on where the logic starts from. If what you are is a gear in the works, then it sounds like magic that you could rise up from gear-hood and replace what would have been with what you ordain.

But what if you aren't a gear? What if your body acts all gear-like, but what you are is something beyond that? Maybe someday we'll discover what consciousness really is and be amazed.

I had a dream once where I exited this universe. I was in this blackness and I turned to see the universe like a big ball beside me. I experimented on re-entering it. It had something to do with how I looked into it. There was a certain way that everything in the ball would start to make sense, and I'd realize I was re-entering it. But I didn't want to get trapped in it, so I turned and got back out.

Anyway, the point is that there's nothing clear about what's really going on. We have no clue. What drives you to believe this or that about determinism is emotion, not logic.

But on the longer time than day or a week or two, the likely of it going down is quite high . — ssu

Then why don't you short some stocks?

A "no" from what?

The claims made by the Administration? — Paine

They say being struck by lightning is a good thing.

Ok. — Banno

Sounds like you're unfamiliar with the topic.

Seriously? — Banno

Yes.

But again, the question I asked was not if Trump might control the markets, but the extent to whciht he markets might control Trump. — Banno

Wall St appears to be ranging right now, which means it's just going up and down between two levels. It's presently going down, yes. It will hit a certain level and start going back up. Something bigger than unease about Trump would have to appear to make it head back down and cross the "support" level it's been respecting for about six months now. Anyone who tells you they know what it's going to do next is full of it. Absolutely no one knows.

It is rare to have a position argued so forcibly. — Paine

I'll take that as a "no."

It ‘indicates’ that most of the 80,000 workers were offered $25,000 to quit their jobs. — Wayfarer

Yea. That's a pretty old down-sizing thing. In fact, I think $25,000 is probably a figure from some time in the last century. :grin:

is tantamount to saying:

"Take this chump change or leave with nothing." — Paine

No, it isn't. Are you American?

Doesn't it matter to anyone that Trump is attacking and dissolving essential government services from within? — Wayfarer

That's not what this AP article indicates. It's a voluntary buy-out that's been offered, although $25,000 is chump change for a buy-out. But if someone was going to change jobs anyway, it might be tempting.

In the US a gender gap among voters exist as well. See here: [url=http://]https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-voting-choices-presidential-elections.[/url]

So no, you cannot predict what someone thinks but you can predict that when you see a woman it is more likely that she voted for Harris and when you see a man it is more likely he voted for Trump. — Tobias

You're saying that cultural "archetypes" are being represented in different party platforms, and masculine parties are on the rise. You discern from this that feminine values are losing ground and wonder if it's related to a backlash against the successes of the more feminine Left.

Is that about right?

I agree with you, but I think it is not that simple. I wish the far right really didn't worry about such issues. Yet the values far right parties have embraced were all masculine values in which women as a class had little to say and their function was to beget men. Not just men though, men of a particular type favored by 'the nation' whatever that may be. In specific hiring functions it may well be that women are employed that is not the philosophy behind it. They may also employ an immigrant or refugee, yet their policies are consistently anti-immigration usually with some notion of purity or religious preference attached to it. — Tobias

I'm guessing something is lost in translation here. If I were at work at started talking about "feminine values" as described in the OP, I'd have to run behind the corner to avoid being hit by whatever objects are in the environment. You can't predict what a person will value based on what they have between their legs, right?

Well yes, I think it is a symptom, but a symptom of what? And what is the symptom exactly the emergence of the far right or the resentment of many young men? What I am curious about is, is whether traditional analyses of power structures in which the rise of the far right is simply conceived as a pathological reaction to the emancipatory struggle for equal rights, with an analysis a repression of masculinity. — Tobias

The far right is a conglomeration. You're asking if incels are a primary driving force, as opposed to just being attracted to it because of an emotional affinity. I think it's more the latter. Trump has a long history of placing women in critically important roles. He's suggested that he is sexist, but thinks hiring women is beneficial because they feel like they have to work harder to be on equal ground. He recently appointed the first female chief of staff, not because he wanted to put on a show of coddling the poor women of the world because they're helpless and we have to give them a boost, but rather because he liked her style and doesn't give a fuck about the rest.

Really, if I were a woman, I would prefer Trump's approach. Don't treat me like a child who has to be protected. Tell your sexist jokes, grab body parts, but in the end, reward me for kicking ass. The far right does have a point, that when we finally stop worrying that so-and-so is a woman, so-and-so is black, latino, asian, etc., we've finally made progress. I realize that all sorts of toxic stuff gets drawn into that and if someone quotes that without this subsequent acknowledgement, I won't respond.

Interesting that someone who purportedly does not want to "control any markets" guts legislation put in place to protect consumers from all sorts of financial injury knowingly and inevitably caused by certain business practices all of which were possible as a result of a lack of those same regulations. — creativesoul

I don't know. When it comes to trade, Americans are much more heavily regulated that Europeans, or really just about anybody else in the world. This is coming from attempts by Americans to mitigate the worst aspects of capitalism (that it occasionally crashes). Why doesn't anyone else in the world care about that? I'm asking, I don't really know.

I was recently telling another poster about how Bronze Age people thought human action is controlled by external divinities. Another aspect of that is that brave, virtuous actions were usually caused by male divinities. Actions that cause disaster were usually coming from female ones. Line this up with the book of Genesis where a primal female brings sin into the world. Think of the average Disney movie where the arch villain is almost always female, and similar to the role Venus plays in the story of Eros and Psyche. Venus tries to destroy Psyche.

One could argue that this is something structural in the human mind, except there's genetic evidence that Celtic societies were female-dominated. Navajo relationships were at the whims of women, not men. I agree with Nietzsche that good and evil can switch poles depending on a society's underlying agendas, so I don't think it's structural. I think it's a symptom, side-effect, aspect of? certain kind of cultural journeys. It's definitely a whale in the psychic sea, though. It's ancient.