#ossasepia Logs for 23 Oct 2019



April 20th, 2020 by Diana Coman
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

Leave a Reply