Show Idle (>14 d.) Chans

← 2019-10-22 | 2019-10-24 →
billymg: << heh, almost. the property is now secured but still a few months away from jumping the fence
ossabot: Logged on 2019-10-22 11:29:36 diana_coman: billymg: I thought the whole point was to get out of the salt mines; or what, does the new property come with salt mine attached so you feel "like home" ? lolz
ossabot: Logged on 2019-10-22 19:38:15 dorion: << 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.)
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
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 ( 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.
diana_coman: jfw: let me know if there's any weird/problem with the account.
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.
diana_coman: asciilifeform: morning; and no worries re bot & vpatch; also, wb snsabot !
whaack: diana_coman: I don't think I have enough background in formal logic to digest . 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.
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)
jfw: diana_coman: ty, and I oughta get some ratings out too. After blog post, I'm thinking. And login works.
jfw: and feedbot will be a great help.
jfw: re self voicing, yes I think "seen but not heard" unless requested is the prudent approach for now.
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.
whaack: (the first X in the statement should be lowercase)
diana_coman: whaack: well, follow the definitions for each and see; the best method is to work through the proof really.
diana_coman: you have in the footnotes everything you need
whaack: ok
diana_coman: jfw: sounds all good.
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
diana_coman: whaack: yes, the deadline for the new policy is by convention April but in principle any time before that.
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.
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
diana_coman: whaack: possibly start with in your own words what absolutely true, universally valid and fundamentally correct *mean*
diana_coman: the why... oh my.
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
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 !
whaack: Yes that was intended, I have a hunch that the double implication is true but I am not certain yet
diana_coman: whaack: based on what, that hunch?
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.
diana_coman: whaack: hmmm, not opposable means that they reflect slightly different aspects
diana_coman: whaack: absolute there is opposed to conventional and being absolutely true means that you can't meaningfully negate them.
diana_coman: onth universally valid means that they also *apply* everywhere ie you can't meaningfully reason outside of their influence.
diana_coman: whaack: do you see the difference there?
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.
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.
whaack: well then i guess neither imply the other then lol
diana_coman: whaack: well yes; otherwise indeed, no need for both
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
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.
diana_coman: whaack: shades and whiskers of meaning there it might seem perhaps but they matter.
whaack: Okay I believe I understand and I do not doubt the importance of the details.
diana_coman: whaack: re "why"... does MP even say why in there? lolz
whaack: no he doesn't
diana_coman: whaack: so you know, leave it for another day, ok? you have loads to do anwyay.
whaack: ok
diana_coman: whaack: is V-reading at least interesting?
whaack: yes I enjoy it quite a bit
diana_coman: whaack: good.
shrysr: << 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.
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
diana_coman: shrysr: yes, meant mp-wp compatible; from what you say, it should work.
← 2019-10-22 | 2019-10-24 →