| diana_coman: | http://ossasepia.com/2020/04/20/ossasepia-logs-for-22-Oct-2019#1007377 - heh, how fitting. | [03:31] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2019-10-22 19:38:15 dorion: http://ossasepia.com/2020/04/20/ossasepia-logs-for-22-Oct-2019#1007357 << congrats jfw. I've not read through the backlog, but will tonight after the Junto. (jfw and I've been organizing a 'learning group' which meets a couple times a month, in the Benjamin Franklin spirit, for nearly 2 years now.) | [03:31] |
| diana_coman: | jfw dorion you might want to use feedbot to follow blogs (posts and/or comments), just pm it eg /msg feedbot !1 help | [03:38] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: http://paste.deedbot.org/?id=wb-U | [10:23] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: I also rated you with deedbot, you should be able to see it via pm eg /msg deedbot !!reputation jfw ; the website (wot.deedbot.org) takes some time to update iirc; atm my rating might still enable you to !!up yourself in #trilema but I suggest abstaining from it for now. | [10:25] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: let me know if there's any weird/problem with the account. | [10:26] |
| asciilifeform: | guten tag diana_coman . you may have noticed, i put back the bot . it was synced with the new autosyncer that was to get deployed right before piz burned down. i'ma put it as vpatch, but prolly wont get chance this wk, hands full w/ 2nd draft of ispism. | [10:53] |
| diana_coman: | asciilifeform: morning; and no worries re bot & vpatch; also, wb snsabot ! | [11:04] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: I don't think I have enough background in formal logic to digest http://trilema.com/2016/the-v-manual-genesis/ . MP says the two listed principles are absolutely true, universally valid, and fundamentally correct. He goes on to define those three statements. However I do not think I fully understand them, because for example I can not think of a statement that is absolutely true while also not universally valid. | [15:44] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: hm, sounds like you didn't quite follow the explanations in the footnotes there; he's not opposing "absolutely true" to "universally valid" because those are not opposable, they are just different facets ie absolutely (true) as opposed to conventionally (true) + universally (valid) as opposed to domain-specific (valid) | [16:03] |
| jfw: | diana_coman: ty, and I oughta get some ratings out too. After blog post, I'm thinking. And login works. | [16:05] |
| jfw: | and feedbot will be a great help. | [16:07] |
| jfw: | re self voicing, yes I think "seen but not heard" unless requested is the prudent approach for now. | [16:09] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: I see. I should have mentioned that I also did not know whether it was possible to oppose them, but your statement clears that up. To be sure I understand, can you confirm the following is true: X is absolutely true iff x is universally valid. | [16:09] |
| whaack: | (the first X in the statement should be lowercase) | [16:11] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: well, follow the definitions for each and see; the best method is to work through the proof really. | [16:12] |
| diana_coman: | you have in the footnotes everything you need | [16:12] |
| whaack: | ok | [16:12] |
| diana_coman: | jfw: sounds all good. | [16:12] |
| whaack: | from my understanding the only reason those without a rating of 9 from mp can self voice in #t is because the new policy has not been implemented on deedbot | [16:14] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: yes, the deadline for the new policy is by convention April but in principle any time before that. | [16:14] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: btw, your question is not about formal logic but still about philosophical categories mainly; not that it can hurt reading more on formal logic too if that's problematic for you but just so you know that it won't likely solve *this* problem. | [16:20] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: ack. After I try to prove that the statement I said is true/false I will try to explain in my own words why the listed principles are absolutely true, universally valid, and fundamentally correct | [16:25] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: possibly start with in your own words what absolutely true, universally valid and fundamentally correct *mean* | [16:28] |
| diana_coman: | the why... oh my. | [16:28] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: ok i will do the above and then contemplate the problem with saying that i will try to "explain in my own words _why_ the listed principles are ab..." lol | [16:38] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: I do like your new-found thoroughness; so I'll cut short your proof-misery: note that your iff statement is yet another thing, namely a double implication ! | [16:39] |
| whaack: | Yes that was intended, I have a hunch that the double implication is true but I am not certain yet | [16:40] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: based on what, that hunch? | [16:40] |
| whaack: | Based on the fact you said they were not opposable. And I interpreted not opposable to mean it is not possible for one to be false while the other is true. | [16:41] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: hmmm, not opposable means that they reflect slightly different aspects | [16:44] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: absolute there is opposed to conventional and being absolutely true means that you can't meaningfully negate them. | [16:51] |
| diana_coman: | onth universally valid means that they also *apply* everywhere ie you can't meaningfully reason outside of their influence. | [16:52] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: do you see the difference there? | [16:54] |
| whaack: | diana_coman: I think so. So from those definitions you gave, I would say a statement being universally valid implies that it is absolutely true, but a statement that is absolutely true does not imply that it is universally valid. | [16:55] |
| diana_coman: | each of "absolutely true" and "universally valid" brings its own bit to the table, hence why MP lists both of them: he is *not* repeating himself there, lolz. | [16:55] |
| whaack: | well then i guess neither imply the other then lol | [16:56] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: well yes; otherwise indeed, no need for both | [16:57] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: a statement being universally valid means that you'll find it in all domains; onth it doesn't yet say that you can't meaningfully *negate* it | [16:58] |
| diana_coman: | so no, it does not imply absolute truth ; and in turn, absolute truth says precisely "you can't negate this meaningfully" BUT it does not imply that you can't find a domain where it just doesn't apply at all. | [17:00] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: shades and whiskers of meaning there it might seem perhaps but they matter. | [17:01] |
| whaack: | Okay I believe I understand and I do not doubt the importance of the details. | [17:03] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: re "why"... does MP even say why in there? lolz | [17:05] |
| whaack: | no he doesn't | [17:05] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: so you know, leave it for another day, ok? you have loads to do anwyay. | [17:05] |
| whaack: | ok | [17:06] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: is V-reading at least interesting? | [17:07] |
| whaack: | yes I enjoy it quite a bit | [17:07] |
| diana_coman: | whaack: good. | [17:08] |
| shrysr: | http://ossasepia.com/2020/04/20/ossasepia-logs-for-22-Oct-2019#1007370 << i set some profile pic based on your comment some time ago, which seems to be working on my blog (not mp-wp based). Presume you meant so that my avatar is used when i comment on other mp-wp blogs. So i've copied the same as avatar.png and checked that it is accessible like in your link. | [17:39] |
| ossabot: | Logged on 2019-10-22 19:23:58 diana_coman: jfw: shrysr whaack get yourselves a proper avatar on your blog, will you? mp-wp will use whatever you have as avatar.png on your domain eg mine is http://ossasepia.com/avatar.png | [17:39] |
| diana_coman: | shrysr: yes, meant mp-wp compatible; from what you say, it should work. | [17:51] |
Comments feed: RSS 2.0