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] |