Your usage of it is a childish taunt. You claim to have found moral justification based on what amounts to a riddle.

Your usage of it is a childish taunt. You claim to have found moral justification based on what amounts to a riddle.

===

 

 You came to this conclusion in which way?
I know about epistemology. I know when it’s used as a legitimate tool and when it is a play toy.
I’ll read the paper as it looks interesting. I tend towards David Kellogg Lewis which allows for any possibility to be true in some universe with no communication between universes.
So there’s room for the “you’re both right” easily enough.
2nd order logic operating over time/steps in a similar fashion to computing allows for more flexibility than logical entailment as each step is simple, cannot contradict and is complete. There is no need to guarantee that a program does anything logical as long each of the steps are logical.
Different way of thinking entirely.
===
 centrist is in quotes because there is no such thing as a centrist. people only convince themselves they are. that’s the joke.
===
None of it does. Politics is just moods people push on one another and we categorize for convenience, more akin to personality sorting like MBTI than anything else.
But we use it and talk about it as if it’s real like we do a lot of things.
===\
a common set of personality traits and moods that people push on one another referred to as fascism exists, yes.
But a a common set of personality traits and moods that people push on one another referred to as centrism also exists but it’s not always what it seems to be which is why I say it is irreal.
===
Fascism has an historical basis and is “made real” as many concepts are by people collaborating in language as people tend to do. Its meaning is sometimes vague but not all that vague as it points in a direction in a kind of “cloud of concepts” all related.
Centrist does not have that benefit.
===
 It is about time and amount of people who use it and usage being in common, yes.
Bruh. Yeet. Poggers.
==
 It’s arbitrary as to the number. It’s more the subculture using it.
You may belong to a group that has a perfectly fine meaning for centrist and you all share and laugh and use it freely.
But you go out to another subculture who hears conflicting reports of “the centrist” and so mocks the notion of centrist as valid.
Ontological pluralism.
===
I don’t have a universals to give you. Sorry. I don’t usually think in universals.

1

I don’t need to. I work on 2nd order logic already which allows for contradiction to happily co-exist at the expense of absolute certainties. Oh well.
Law of excluded middle is not in my realm. Intuitionist logic is though. It’s pragmatic. Church’s lambda calculus is suitable. Computing logic using steps / time.
All of which bypass any need for “paradox”.
If you have a trilemma for example? That is queueing problem. You need to answer each in turn and branch off to other questions and then swing back for an answer.
Maybe you need to ask the operator more questions. Do research. Gather more information. Look into the history. Look at the person asking the question.
===
  • t’s a child’s riddle. A game. First order logic sets up the game board and you get a situation where your chess pieces can’t go any further. On no, it’s checkmate.
    But there’s other ways to do logic.

===

 

There’s nothing to argue. You’re being evasive and feel justified using similar notions that I use.
We’re arguing about nothing.
===
We walk distinct paths. I know what I think and believe. You want to discover what that is and are asking questions which is great.
I like doing what I can to dispel ignorance.
===
 I was never much for logic/riddle games.
I was raised with computing so when I learned about old style logic I was like, “where’s the algorithm?” very annoying how you gotta hold all these things together in a single statement.
If you just unroll it into a program you can get around any inconsistencies in other ways. It’s how the real world functions.
===
Like, you can try to brute force hack into a system…
…or you can look under the keyboard of one of the secretaries.
===

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− 4 = three

Leave a Reply