People Are Lovely — Amity

Can a number have an application to matter and yet have no connection to matter? — ucarr

Does a map have some type of relationship _connection with/to terrain?

↪NOS4A2
You're kind of like Sisyphus — frank

the hard problem of consciousness and free will [will] not go away — Jack Cummins

various authors use the idea differently

Many of the important thinkers were speculating

may be insufficient

NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)

31August24 – $19.50 per share 
(NASDAQ 17,713.62) — 180 Proof

How useful is this area of brain research to the debate between free will and determinism? — Jack Cummins

Formalisms measure regularities of nature. — ucarr

you also say formalisms do = regularities of nature. — ucarr

In fact, when you get right down to brass taxes, who's doing much rational thinking at all that leads to anything concrete? We do plenty of post hoc rationalizing to make us feel good about our irrational behaviour though. — Baden

Why are these two statements not a contradiction? — ucarr

Why are "regularities of nature" not concrete matters of fact?

How are "matters of fact" concrete but not empirical?

If self-descriptions ("formalisms...do not refer beyond themselves") have nothing to do with the world (nature), instead being interested only in themselves, how are they meaningful and useful?

...that physical laws are computable does not entail that the physical universe is a computer.
— 180 Proof

Does this argument cast doubt on whether we can know reality beyond its human translation? — ucarr

Are the disciplines of epistemology and ontology merely products of human translations?

Is Platonic Realism correct: humans dwell within a (cognitive) dark cave, sealed off from direct and complete experience of reality?

Can we hope to eventually reason beyond the current state-of-the-art observations limited by imprecision of measurement and incompleteness of decompression? Or is it the case the limited measurements of the wave function and the limited decompression of axiomatic systems reflect existential limitations embedded in [of] nature?

Now perhaps we come to a crux of the faceoff between the sciences and the humanities. If the observer is always entangled with the observed, does that mean the two great modalities of discovery: the what and the what it’s like of the what are linked by the biconditional operator?

... batshit RFK, Jr replaces fake-redneck JD Vance as VP canditate in MAGA-GOP bait-n-switch (instigated by Kelly Ann Conway) in the days or weeks to come. — 180 Proof

The only obsession everyone wants: 'love'. People think that in falling in love they make themselves whole? The Platonic union of souls? I think otherwise. I think you're whole before you begin. And the love fractures you. You're whole and then you're cracked open.

Only when you fuck is everything that you dislike in life and everythiing by which you are defeated in life purely, if momentarily, revenged. Only then are you most cleanly alive and most cleanly yourself. It's not the sex that's the corruption – it's the rest. Sex isn't just friction and shallow fun.

Sex is also the revenge on death.

Don't forget death. Don't ever forget it. Yes, sex too is limited in its power. I know very well how limited. But tell me, what power is greater? — Philip Roth

Like religion, which says we are all sinners who need god to be saved, psychology can sometimes fall into the trap of saying we are all bungled and need insight through treatment. — Tom Storm

Logic that has meaning and works always assumes the interaction between a human and the marks on the paper: — ucarr

I think I might have to invest time in this book! :up: — Amity

Murdoch's Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals collection further elaborates on her reading of Plato and Platonism. — 180 Proof

... for any system that does work, as it goes forward in the systematic process of doing work, the work builds up complexity of detail. This building up of complexity can be observed in two modes: phenomenal (entropy) and epistemic (logic). — ucarr

This leads to the conclusion that axiomatic systems are a form of compression of complexity and that the increase of complexity is an irreversible process.

That is cause for worry. — BitconnectCarlos

Still overvalued by about $19.50. Who buys these shit sandwiches? — unenlightened

NASDAQ (DJT :rofl:)

26August24 – $21.72 per share
(NASDAQ 17,725.77) — 180 Proof

Are you proceeding from the premise causal relationships are not fundamental in nature? — ucarr

Is there a foundational relationship between uncertainty, incompleteness and entropy? — ucarr

Murdo[ch] shows how Plato also sees art as being focused on pleasures as opposed to enlightenment. — Jack Cummins