Moon Called's Random Banter #86 of Sexy Anime Boys and Fangirl Squeals

[SDF]

^^First of all, a typo is something to be laughed at. A constant misspelling is something to be corrected. And a purposeful misspelling like srsly is something to completely and utterly ignore.

No, wrong. You see you are on the INTERBLARGS and if you find this stuff annoying... well our public libraries are sadly empty.

[Sean92k]

I like salt ... but it hurts my eyes You dont like mettalica the beatles monty python or mononoke hime. Who is tasteles?

[Cyrano]

Sken:
Point the first: FINE! BE that way.

Point the second: The determination of falseness isn't necessarily determinable by anyone at any given moment. Any completely INDETERMINABLE sentence? I have no idea. I've never been exposed to one. You could find one for me.

Point the third:
My stance here is that falseness is an intrinsic quality taken as if by an observer outside the fishbowl of time and space. Whether you know if that person has or will say something makes no difference. The statement is true or false depending on the simple fact that he will or will not say something as determined by someone outside the flow of time.

SDF: Dude, I'm schizophrenic and understand les Quebecois, and I still don't know what the hell you meant.

[The Great Skenardo]

Sken:

Spoiler

Show

Point the first: FINE! BE that way.

Point the second: The determination of falseness isn't necessarily determinable by anyone at any given moment. Any completely INDETERMINABLE sentence? I have no idea. I've never been exposed to one. You could find one for me.

Point the third:
My stance here is that falseness is an intrinsic quality taken as if by an observer outside the fishbowl of time and space. Whether you know if that person has or will say something makes no difference. The statement is true or false depending on the simple fact that he will or will not say something as determined by someone outside the flow of time.

Point the second: There's the old classic "This statement is false."

Point the third: So we're assuming a sort of Pascal's Demon? (i.e. an omnipotent observer) If that's the case, then your stance seems to necessitate a deterministic universe, yes?

[FdL]

Beauty will be defined in millihelens. a face worth one Helen can launch a thousand ships. A millihelen launches one ship. Most people are defined in fractions of a millihelen.

Heh! This was clever ^^

*goes back to watching the D & MC & friends show*

[Cyrano]

Point 3. If by deterministic, you mean lack of free will, ie, your course is determined ahead of time with no way to change paths, no, not at all. Whether free will exists or not is not a question for this philosophy. I say it does, you may not. Whatever. The point is Pascal's Demon exists outside of time. Whatever choice you made, YOU MADE, and they were CHOICES. The fact that they are observable by the Demon is because the Demon can see every action, every choice, constantly. Time does not exist for someone outside of the fishbowl. Everything has already happened, is happening, hasn't happened yet, etc. That doesn't mean you didn't get to make a choice about it.

Point 2.
I'm just gonna have to go out on a limb here and say "ellipsis."

I can't believe I forgot that. Perhaps there are 3 subjects: Trueness, Falsity, Paradox. Or maybe Pascal's Demon knows whether it is true or false. One major point of my post was that the universe determines the falsity of something, that isn't necessarily determinable by mortals. That's one case. I have NO IDEA WHATSOEVER. It may be begging the question, but I don't have anything better.

[The Great Skenardo]

Point 2: Isn't 'paradox' the same as 'indeterminate,' then? It seems to me that the way you're using the word 'paradox,' they encompass exactly the same things.

Point 3: So then True or False must be non-temporal, by your model. If the truth of a statement can be reduced to a "bottom-line," as it were, by Pascal's Demon... Does the ability of an entity outside of the realm of our universe actually have any causal impact on the nature of truth inside it?

That is, can something outside of the universe (by which I mean outside of time and space) be used even in de facto arguments?

[Cyrano]

Point Three: Indeterminate is something that is undefined. It is either truth, OR falsity, you don't really know. Paradox is something that is both/neither at once.

Point Two. Yes, truthiness and falsity are determined as true or false by the complete timeline. My point is not that Pascal's Demon exists, just that some things can only be determined from his point of view. If you say "the next statement I say will be false" and then die in a year, in the year of intervening space the statement is false regardless, however much you are unsure of that fact.
If that's not what you meant, than it's obviously your fault! Explain it better.
obviously.

[The Great Skenardo]

Point Three: Indeterminate is something that is undefined. It is either truth, OR falsity, you don't really know. Paradox is something that is both/neither at once.

Point Two. Yes, truthiness and falsity are determined as true or false by the complete timeline. My point is not that Pascal's Demon exists, just that some things can only be determined from his point of view. If you say "the next statement I say will be false" and then die in a year, in the year of intervening space the statement is false regardless, however much you are unsure of that fact.
If that's not what you meant, than it's obviously your fault! Explain it better.
obviously.

Points two and three: My point is this; the ability to ascribe True or False to every statement is, as you've said, the realm of Pascal's Demon only. By the very nature of the Demon, he must "exist" outside of time of space, as you've said. If certain things can only be determined from the demon's point of view, and the demon by definition cannot exist in this universe...then does his perspective apply within the universe? The two must be irrevocably separated, musn't they?

[Cyrano]

Hmm. Imagine Pascal's little friend not as a living, thinking creature. Instead, it's a recorder, or a spam filter. A non sentient thing that can, nevertheless, determine the Xness of Y. So a point of view doesn't exist. It simply knows, by the standards of our universe, exactly the truthness or falseness or something.
God, this is tough to explain. This is the problem of having a fragmented mindset.
Ok, imagine instead of a Pascal's Demon, that the universe itself, as a construct of spacetime instead of space/time, can determine the falseness of something. The universe, by definition, contains the entirety of distance, ie space, and duration, ie time, in the universe. The universe could hardly be irrevocabaly seperated from itself.
I'm not sure if what I mean is coming across, but that's because I can't write abstract things very well.

[The Great Skenardo]

Hmm. Imagine Pascal's little friend not as a living, thinking creature. Instead, it's a recorder, or a spam filter. A non sentient thing that can, nevertheless, determine the Xness of Y. So a point of view doesn't exist. It simply knows, by the standards of our universe, exactly the truthness or falseness or something.
God, this is tough to explain. This is the problem of having a fragmented mindset.
Ok, imagine instead of a Pascal's Demon, that the universe itself, as a construct of spacetime instead of space/time, can determine the falseness of something. The universe, by definition, contains the entirety of distance, ie space, and duration, ie time, in the universe. The universe could hardly be irrevocabaly seperated from itself.
I'm not sure if what I mean is coming across, but that's because I can't write abstract things very well.

Perhaps it's the result of confusion, but it seems as if you're saying something like
"Suppose there were a square that were round."
As I see it, there's not a heckuva lot of difference between Pascal's Demon and the Cosmos-Thinker you've laid out. The only difference I can see is that you've said "Okay, but what if the observer were the universe? Then its knowledge would have to apply to itself!"

I'm not sure you can do that, until you have a definitive answer to the question "Is it the case that the universe is the cosmos-thinker?" Because this is a question that must have an answer, since its components all exist (or have the potential to).

[Cyrano]

(I prefer to call it The Living Tribunal.)

Anyway, the basis of that post was, indeed, that the universe itself was thinking.
I understand that this may or may not be true, and that short of direct contact it would be impossible to determine the answer to that question. However, my point was not "There is something out there that can observe falsity." My point was "Should there be something out there, truth and falsity are absolute concepts that could be observed." I'm not saying anyone KNOWS the answers to phrases, in regards to truth, I'm saying that whether it is seen or observed or not, it exists.
Again, you may think this is begging the question, but this is essentially Philosophy Lite. Nobody can (or cares to) prove solipsism either.

[The Great Skenardo]

(I prefer to call it The Living Tribunal.)

Anyway, the basis of that post was, indeed, that the universe itself was thinking.
I understand that this may or may not be true, and that short of direct contact it would be impossible to determine the answer to that question. However, my point was not "There is something out there that can observe falsity." My point was "Should there be something out there, truth and falsity are absolute concepts that could be observed." I'm not saying anyone KNOWS the answers to phrases, in regards to truth, I'm saying that whether it is seen or observed or not, it exists.
Again, you may think this is begging the question, but this is essentially Philosophy Lite. Nobody can (or cares to) prove solipsism either.

But if you're maintaining the view that because there could be the Cosmos-Thinker then everything must be either true or false (or paradox), then you presuppose that the universe is the Cosmos-Thinker, do you not?

[Cyrano]

But if you're maintaining the view that because there could be the Cosmos-Thinker then everything must be either true or false (or paradox), then you presuppose that the universe is the Cosmos-Thinker, do you not?

If the cosmos-thinker existed, exists, or will exist, then yes, obviously.

Anyway, the basis of that post was, indeed, that the universe itself was thinking.

I still fail to see the problem.

[SDF]

SDF: Dude, I'm schizophrenic and understand les Quebecois, and I still don't know what the hell you meant.

That is for the best D'anne person. It would have blown the mind of every personality you have.

[The Great Skenardo]

If the cosmos-thinker existed, exists, or will exist, then yes, obviously.
I still fail to see the problem.

(A minor quibble, first: If the cosmos-thinker is to exist, it must exist through all time by definition. Either it is and always has been or it isn't and never will be.)

But then you're basing your philosophy about true or false on something that's indeterminate, are you not?

[Cyrano]

(Why? We don't exist in the past, even though we have memories of it. If the universe spontaneously developed conciousness at some point other than it's conception, why would that change it? But that's a different discussion, oui?)
Sure. To us.
We don't know if aliens exist. That doesn't mean that, in Andromeda, that Glarasasgasd, the evil Alien Overlord of Gribtalrsgrll, does not exist.
In the same way, the existance of CT is indeterminate. That does not mean it is not true or false.

[The Great Skenardo]

(Why? We don't exist in the past, even though we have memories of it. If the universe spontaneously developed conciousness at some point other than it's conception, why would that change it? But that's a different discussion, oui?)
Sure. To us.
We don't know if aliens exist. That doesn't mean that, in Andromeda, that Glarasasgasd, the evil Alien Overlord of Gribtalrsgrll, does not exist.
In the same way, the existance of CT is indeterminate. That does not mean it is not true or false.

But from the perspective of the man basing his philosophy off of it, it's a gamble, yes?

[Saithis Bladewing]

We don't know if aliens exist. That doesn't mean that, in Andromeda, that Glarasasgasd, the evil Alien Overlord of Gribtalrsgrll, does not exist.

I love Schrödinger's cat, don't you, D'anna dearest? Tell me, do you dance with flowers in the springtime? I love doing so myself.

Skenardo, my friend! Come dance with us in the flowers! It'll make everything better!

[Cyrano]

But from the perspective of the man basing his philosophy off of it, it's a gamble, yes?

Noooooo. It isn't.
You fail to see my point.
Truth and falsehood are intrinsic values in my mind. An element is an element, whether we know what an element is or not. A prime number is a prime number, whether we have the concept of math or not. Zero is nothing and infinity is infinite, whether we care or are rotting in the gutter, being decomposed by weather and leftover rum. It doesn't matter whether or not something understands or observes it, or even if it's quali or quanitfiable. it doesn't make any difference. It's just there.

And Saithis, love, springtime flowers are all well and good, but you are surely the prettiest bloom here.

[Saithis Bladewing]

And Saithis, love, springtime flowers are all well and good, but you are surely the prettiest bloom here.

Oh, but now you usher on flattery to the flower already blooming and taken, what motivation lies in there, we wonder? To be kind or not to be kind? Radishes or oranges? These flowers are being trampled under your careless advance now, be careful, lest you make the pixies cry with your hope.

[Cyrano]

Oh, but now you usher on flattery to the flower already blooming and taken, what motivation lies in there, we wonder? To be kind or not to be kind? Radishes or oranges? These flowers are being trampled under your careless advance now, be careful, lest you make the pixies cry with your hope.

Why, is not the rose already plucked just as fine, my dear? There is no need to usher on or off flattery for any beauteous thing regardless of current vegetative state. Kindness is a simple virtue that needs no motivation save kindness itself. Why, the difference between fruit and vegetable is no difference at all, for they both taste sweet and look fine blooming, or on the plate! The flowers always grow better for a little carelessness, and surely the fey would understand any man's need for a simple smile.

What the hell are we saying? What? WHAT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS! Who the HELL just wrote that? it's ridiculous!

[Saithis Bladewing]

Why, is not the rose already plucked just as fine, my dear? There is no need to usher on or off flattery for any beauteous thing regardless of current vegetative state. Kindness is a simple virtue that needs no motivation save kindness itself. Why, the difference between fruit and vegetable is no difference at all, for they both taste sweet and look fine blooming, or on the plate! The flowers always grow better for a little carelessness, and surely the fey would understand any man's need for a simple smile.

What the hell are we saying? What? WHAT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS! Who the HELL just wrote that? it's ridiculous!

Shadow and faith is not determined indeterminately, but by chaotic patterns swirling through the mists of fate, time and essence. You do not determine the beauty of a thing by its colour or its shape, but by its soul. A soul taken should lose its external beauty, yet you claim understanding of a beauty of it. Evanescent it must be, for surely this will fade, when the soul of a shadow remains taken despite all hints of doom. Yet fruit and vegetable, differences do exist. The fruit exists to protect the seed, it is the fruition of the labour of creation, the fruit is life. The vegetable, not always. While some may hold similarities, many others are simply root or leaf or stem. Inherently all remain inferior to the power of the divine soul which infuses all embodied individuals of our land.

[Cyrano]

Well now you're just talking nonsense, dear.

[SDF]

I could cut the tension in this discussion with a stick of butter. I think I know what we all want. *turns on Benny Hill theme*

[Cyrano]

Did I just suddenly lose all understanding of the english language?

[Saithis Bladewing]

Affirmatively the sesquipedalian pigs of this new century speak to inform one D'anna that lost are all semblances of reality, understanding and conceptualization in the affairs of life, love, liberty and the english language. Two-ninety-nine is all that is required, you know; just a single drop of coin and it all collapses, but only if language breaks down to lack understandable infusions of nature's instincts into itself.

[Cyrano]

Affirmatively the sesquipedalian pigs of this new century speak to inform one D'anna that lost are all semblances of reality, understanding and conceptualization in the affairs of life, love, liberty and the english language. Two-ninety-nine is all that is required, you know; just a single drop of coin and it all collapses, but only if language breaks down to lack understandable infusions of nature's instincts into itself.

You know, you get really sexy when you babble.

[Saithis Bladewing]

You know, you get really sexy when you babble.

Many times said this remains so ten times more it shall be said; advances of unhinged persuasion are undesired by the null gods of doomsday tomorrow. Well undeserved and unwanted they are, for the shadow's soul remains taken, seized hold of tight, claws and fangs biting down upon its heart, warm tail curled about, protecting and ensuring its safety. Saithis' heart is taken, for none other to touch, for none other to see, for none other to please.

[The Great Skenardo]

Noooooo. It isn't.
You fail to see my point.
Truth and falsehood are intrinsic values in my mind. An element is an element, whether we know what an element is or not. A prime number is a prime number, whether we have the concept of math or not. Zero is nothing and infinity is infinite, whether we care or are rotting in the gutter, being decomposed by weather and leftover rum. It doesn't matter whether or not something understands or observes it, or even if it's quali or quanitfiable. it doesn't make any difference. It's just there.

So, you're assuming that there must be some ultimate-objective viewpoint which is absolutely correct? And that this viewpoint, although it is not yours, is the standard by which all things shall be judged true or false?