Delightful! You do this before your bacon and eggs every morning?
After spending nearly as much time reading this as you two spent producing it, this is salient to me, because it is the only I statement I saw that went undiscussed:
The idea that a human can somehow violate causality or create something from nothing is not supported by scientific evidence or rational inquiry, and is generally regarded as a baseless or fantastical idea.
I love how you got the thing talking in circles, how many times it resorted to saying "multifaceted and complex."
In the end, the notion of objective morality in nothing more than multifaceted and complex. Duh.
the same bot authored this yesterday, at my request,
https://blurtlatam.intinte.org/ethics/@logiczombie/the-illusion-of-free-will-why-even-magic-can-t-solve-this-logic-problem
i wish !!
good point about the time - - estimated read, one hour, exactly the same as the entire tao te ching
right, but it's NOT "multifaceted and complex"
it's really really simple
you can't call something "objective" unless you can verify it empirically, or it is LOGICALLY NECESSARY
the human concept of "morality" is simply an emotion, pure qualia
Ah, yes. Is anything objective?
physicists have this thing they call sigma
to quantify confidence
anything below a three sigma should not be considered reliable
Quantification is not verification
everything verifiable must be first quantifiable
You suggest that logical necessity depends on a sigma value, a confidence, a feeling.
or
also, sigma is not a feeling
sigma is a rigorous and quantifiable measure of replicability
how many times have you conducted this experiment ?
and how many times did you receive anomalous results ?
and calculating the vector
confidence is a feeling
LOGICZOMBIE — Today at 1:29 PM
please explain sigma as a measure of confidence
clyde
AI
— Today at 1:29 PM
Sigma is a statistical term used to describe the level of confidence in a particular result or finding. In many cases it is used to describe the degree of certainty that an experimental result or statistical claim is not simply due to random chance.
In the case of a scientific experiment, sigma is often used to describe the likelihood that a particular result is not simply due to chance. A high sigma value indicates a high degree of confidence in the result, while a low sigma value suggests that the result may be due to random variation or other factors that are not under the experimenter’s control.
For example, scientists might perform a statistical analysis of their data and determine that their results are significant at the 5 sigma level. This would indicate that there is only a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is due to random chance, and thus provide a high degree of confidence in the conclusions drawn from the experiment.
Overall, the concept of sigma is an important one in scientific research and data analysis, as it provides a way to quantitatively evaluate the strength and significance of experimental data and statistical claims.
lol our buddy clyde!
Any statistical analysis is predicated on the statistician's choice of data. Just as any scientific experiment can be structured to produce the desired result.
I'm too much a mathematician to accept quantification as verification. If it ain't perfectly true, it ain't true.
But the converse is not necessarily true, and so logically is considered to be untrue until proven otherwise.
there are three distinct categories
provably true
provably false
the rest is qualia
for example
just because something may NOT be provably true, does not make it "untrue" or "false"
most claims simply have no truth-value at all, neither positive or negative
What you can prove, or not, depends on your assumptions. Since we all have varying assumptions, nothing can be proven absolutely true or false. All is qualia. Morality is qualia. This is why freedom (free will?) is so crucially important. If it even exists.
This has been great. I feel like I have a young and agile brain again. Thanks for shaving fifty years off my age.
🤬
🥓
objects
specifically objects are objective
verifiable empirical observations are objective
OK so solipsism is not a valid premise?
We can't even agree on what red is.
To verify, logically, we have to start with axioms. What are yours?
dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum
I love that!
I was going to bring up descartes and his failure to prove all things from one axiom.
So that's it? One (great) innovation on a washed up philosopher's most famous statement?
well, there are a lot more on top of that one
my own thoughts and senses are generally but not 100% reliable
it is often useful to imagine naive realism is valid, in order to reduce social friction
etcetera
idk what naive realism is, but I think I can see it all around me. And yes, those of us who do not engage in naive realism are seen as threats to the social order.
Trivium 🤬
and Quadrivium 🥓
i can see where you think you're going with this,
engineering is validation of objects
EVEN IFF you are currently hallucinating some sort of solipsistic fever dream
lol I hardly ever think I know where he is going, but I am always entertained.
Bacon and eggs 🤔