advanced fuckotry

[eris]

see what I mean about chaos ?

those past two posts make absolutly no sense at all to me. But it makes sense to richard and Schleed

we are just throwing words at each other and sometimes some of them stick and form conversations

[richard]

My pictures are jesus crying for argentina. 

[P7PSP]

My pictures are jesus crying for argentina. 

I thought Eva Peron cried for Argentina? That brings up a subjective truth eris. I fucking hate musicals.

[richard]

I like how this man thinks. maybe more than one person can cry for argentina?

[P7PSP]

I like how this man thinks. maybe more than one person can cry for argentina?

I'll stipulate to that. 

[eris]

My pictures are jesus crying for argentina. 

I thought Eva Peron cried for Argentina? That brings up a subjective truth eris. I fucking hate musicals.

I hate them too. But i LOVE Hedvig and the Angry Inch. That was a musical.

So I hate musicals. I like one musical. How does one set a truth value for the question " Do I like musicals ? "

There is something called the theory of forms.

Basically it builds on Plato"s Cave http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/platoscave.html , and suggests that everything we see is really only a projection of that image..... kind of like a negative of a photograph. We dont really see anything real, just projections.

For instance a rose has set " truth values". It has flower-ness. real things that can be measured like color and number of thorns. 

but it is only a shadow. Just a vibration of a flower.

[P7PSP]

A bit of what I just looked up regarding Plato suggested a "A place for everyone and everyone in their place" kind of underpinning. I recall reading in an old law book from Rothenburg(?) Germany that in the middle ages that thinking was taken to a ridiculous extreme of dunking successful tradesmen and/or their families for having the temerity to dress above their station. Plato would therefore be just as stuck in the cave of social expectations as most others of his time.

[eris]

A bit of what I just looked up regarding Plato suggested a "A place for everyone and everyone in their place" kind of underpinning. I recall reading in an old law book from Rothenburg(?) Germany that in the middle ages that thinking was taken to a ridiculous extreme of dunking successful tradesmen and/or their families for having the temerity to dress above their station. Plato would therefore be just as stuck in the cave of social expectations as most others of his time.

Plato was thousands of years before that, but I gotcha  Any kind of thinking can be taken to extremes.


And everyone is trappend in the cave. forever. we just have to realize that we are in the cave, and stop taking ourselves so seriously.

[richard]

I kind of like being serious. its what i do best, maybe someone should pass me a booklet of matches so i can just use them up and then forget i need to see

[Scrapheap]

Should you be trusted with matches??

[Callaway]

These discussions are meaningless. All that they prove is how clumsily many people think.

eris, you're already engaging in Orwellian Doublethink on many levels. You're just showing how easy it is to brainwash people, as soon as they accept that 1+1= 457,863,752,323,545,890,324.

        

But in binary arithmetic, 1 + 1 = 10.

In Boolean algebra, 1 + 1 = 1.

So it can be argued quite effectively that 1 + 1 does not necessarily equal 2.

That's not Orwelian Doublethink, it's just a different perspective, IMO.

[richard]

Should you be trusted with matches??

just about as much as you should be trusted with phenominal cosmic power.

[Queen Victoria]

I think I failed the course.

[Osensitive1]

Reality is subjective, not truth. No sense in confusing or combining the two. Chaos is a disgusting notion. Everything is caused by something. The butterfly effect only proves humans aren't smart enough to predict the weather.

[Semicolon]

These discussions are meaningless. All that they prove is how clumsily many people think.

eris, you're already engaging in Orwellian Doublethink on many levels. You're just showing how easy it is to brainwash people, as soon as they accept that 1+1= 457,863,752,323,545,890,324.

        

But in binary arithmetic, 1 + 1 = 10.

In Boolean algebra, 1 + 1 = 1.

So it can be argued quite effectively that 1 + 1 does not necessarily equal 2.

That's not Orwelian Doublethink, it's just a different perspective, IMO.

In binary arithmetic, 10 is just  different representation of 2. 1 + 1 still equals 2.

Boolean addition (the OR function) is not the same as arithmetic addition. The "+" operator of Boolean logic is not the same as the "+" operator of arithmetic. Boolean addition is not really addition; it is only analogous to addition. Furthermore, this only works in some algebraic structures.

However, this helps prove my point. Within the structure of Boolean logic, 1 + 1 = 1 for all observers using the same basic definitions and set of rules.