"This statement is not provable in this system."
Godel cleverly avoided self-referencing fallacy when making this statement, by the way.
I cant exactly explain it right now, but its sort of like how computers avoid self-referencing.
"This statement is not provable in this system."
Godel cleverly avoided self-referencing fallacy when making this statement, by the way.
I cant exactly explain it right now, but its sort of like how computers avoid self-referencing.
Alright, so someone told me that I cant define things into existence. And I thought to myself, yes I can!
First, I tried defining "box of gold" as box full of gold which appears before me any time when I want. No great suprise that box didnt appear even tho by definition it should have!
But then I thought, what does it mean to appear? What does it mean to exist? Maybe the box appeared and I cannot detect it?
So I changed the definition of box of gold to: box full of gold which appears before me any time when I want, and which I can always detect.
No great wonder, box didnt appear this time either.
Or did it?
I remembered Godel's incompleteness theorems, and Godel's completeness theorem, when applied to arguments.
Completeness theorem says that first order logic and definitions are provable within the system. In other words, the only thing which is provable within the system are basic logical laws, such as A=A, and definitions used, and what is able to be proved by definitions and basic logical laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-order_logic
So per Completeness theorem, definitions when accepted are used for proof, and this proof is valid everywhere, even outside the system. So the math defines things into existence.
However, what is existence? How do we know that we exist?
And this is where Godel's incompleteness theory comes in. Hilbert's program had a goal to create one universal system for whole math. In simple terms, it had two goals: Create a system which can prove itself to be true, and which can prove all the remaining math as well.
However, Godel's incompleteness theory completely destroyed Hilbert's program. Incompleteness theory gave 3 major problems which program could never solve:
Gödel constructed a statement like:
"This statement is not provable in this system."
If it were provable, the system would be inconsistent.
If it is not provable, it's true, but unprovable ⇒ incompleteness.
How does incompleteness apply to proving existence?
System which is used to prove existence would require ability to prove that such system exists, that such system is consistent. But that is impossible to prove within the system. You cannot prove your senses are consistent or that they even correctly determine what exists.
So while completeness theorem does say definitions are used as proof and are true everywhere, the incompleteness theorem makes any other proof of existence impossible.
In other words, not only that you can define things into existence, but proving existence without definitions is impossible, because senses are flawed.
In simple terms, box of gold exists by definitions, and my senses are just flawed!
More about Hilbert's program:
Hilbert proposed that the consistency of more complicated systems, such as real analysis, could be proven in terms of simpler systems. Ultimately, the consistency of all of mathematics could be reduced to basic arithmetic.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems, published in 1931, showed that Hilbert's program was unattainable for key areas of mathematics. In his first theorem, Gödel showed that any consistent system with a computable set of axioms which is capable of expressing arithmetic can never be complete: it is possible to construct a statement that can be shown to be true, but that cannot be derived from the formal rules of the system. In his second theorem, he showed that such a system could not prove its own consistency, so it certainly cannot be used to prove the consistency of anything stronger with certainty. This refuted Hilbert's assumption that a finitistic system could be used to prove the consistency of itself, and therefore could not prove everything else.
Without an authoritative body, rights are just an individual and variable concept...What might be one persons logic, may not be the same as another's.
The logic dictates equal logical powers. In other words, your "authoritative body" has just about as much logical rights as everyone else. So who gets to impose their logic on whom? Power and strength dont determine what is morally correct. If that were the case, any criminal capable of escaping justice would be about as morally justified as any saint or any good person. If your position is that power makes right, then everything which person has power to do is justified. That isnt morality, but a complete lack of morality. That is just Satanic principle of power. But morality itself comes from what is logically necessary, not from power. Power is an arbitrary justification, and anyone can make arbitrary justifications, thus they are useful to no one in a logical discussion.
USA isnt a country of freedom. You legally shouldn't be able to arrest anyone without clear evidence of them violating others. USA maybe has some free speech, but cops can literally arrest you at random if they have any random suspicion or if you dont comply with even clearly unjustified orders. Basically cops get to be bullies, and if you stand up to them, they shoot you or tie you down.
"Rights" are dictated by State and society
Incorrect, rights are dictated by logical laws. However, you have that slave morality issue where you think government or society owns you.
Ancient philosophers talked of changing forms and non-changing forms.
Non-changing forms must exist, otherwise ability to identify anything doesnt exist.
For example, I change as I age. But people still know its me, even tho I changed. So something had to stay same, or people wouldnt be able to even know about me.
Truth demands "non-changing truths". Truth which changes isnt permanent truth.
All things which change must have the core which doesnt change, and which creates them. Because they are created, they need to have something which created them, and that something is their core.
Is death guaranteed?
No, the ancient philosophers already worked out forms and basis. While forms are temporary and changing, basis which form comes from can never change. In other words, your current forn is just one of forms you can have, and your basis cannot be destroyed by death. Only form can die because its temporary, not the basis core which is eternal.
To put it in a simple language, there is temporary and there is eternal. Eternal can never die. The body may die, but the core which created it remains.
There obviously are basic parts which person is made of, smallest possible parts, and these parts cannot be destroyed.
GOD EMPEROR TRUMP
What are you doing to oppose your very self being a slave to the system daily?
Nothing, it is impossible to live without resources. We are all slaves to resources, in a sense.
So I see people keep claiming that screen brightness doesnt affect performance on smartphones and laptops.
However, this couldnt be further from truth.
First we must establish what affects performance:
Screen brightness affects both of these in smartphones and laptops.
Heat slowls down smartphones and laptops, but increasing screen brightness increases heat.
Also, available power is directly affected by screen brightness. There is simply no way around this. Full battery works faster than half full or nearly empty battery. However, screen brightness is a significant drain on battery, meaning there is less resources for other tasks, such as performance.
Maybe in regular computers this isnt a problem because power source for screen and computer is separated, but for laptops and smartphones, power source is not separated. Also, in smartphones, screen is very close to processor. So any increase in heat by screen goes directly to other parts of smartphone.
So to prove my theory, I did some tests, such as using phone at max brightness and at lowest brightness for certain time. And yes, lowest brightness generally saves battery, which results in increased performance indirectly.
In laptop, likewise, I notice a slight increase in performance when brightness is lower.
If brightness had no effect on performance, we would see same performance on max brightness and on lowest brightness. But we dont.
Nice. I really like Ancient Egypt and their religion was amazing! I can completely understand worship of Sun God, and I usually extend it to worship of fire which provides warmth like the Sun.
And trans enablement relies upon a whole raft of social provision overseen by the governance of State and society.
I dont think government or majority owns people. If that was true, then slavery of the past was okay because majority agreed with it. Slaves in Egypt were small minority, and majority agreed that they should be slaves. If you want to say slavery, forced labor, forced marriages, rape...ect. are all okay as long as majority agrees, I am afraid such morality has no morality.
If I dont violate your rights, why would you violate mine? Am I your property? Am I property of majority? Who is the one who gets to take away rights of others at will?
I dont know about all feminists, but arguments I saw were:
P1. Porn is sexual exploitation of women, either directly either indirectly
P2. Sexual exploitation of women is wrong
C. Porn is wrong
Now, P2 is generally accepted premise. P1 is likewise accepted because non-exploiting porn cannot be effectively separated from exploiting. Conclusion logically follows.
So someone who supports porn (unless animated) must defend that sexual exploitation of women isnt always wrong.
So I am not sure what argument can even be made to say that porn is morally okay, other than body autonomy argument because obviously not all porn is sexual exploitation.
If they dont like the name, I wouldnt call them that name. There is no point in me making someone uncomfortable like that.
I believe body autonomy can only be limited when it contradicts body autonomy of another. Thats the only case where it logically can and must be limited. In other words, I dont believe you get to make choices about my body if I am 10, 20 or 30. There is no logical law which gives you the special right to take away my rights using arbitrary justification. Maybe you can explain why you get such special power, and I dont?
It's self evident and part of civilized society that minors dont always have the same rights and privileges and abilities as adults
Unless you can solve the contradiction which comes with giving one part of population ability to deny other of body autonomy, I am afraid nothing is self-evident. Also, UN declaration of rights says children get a choice, so I am not sure what "self evident" thing are you talking about. You are supposed to make arguments.
Here is the best test of your philosophy. If you have xx chromosomes, have a baby without sperm.
You can with AI, but I never claimed to be able to have baby without sperm, so its irrelevant to anything ever.
It wasn't a concession genius
I dont know what mental illness do you suffer from, but its funny.
If you assert all have ability, then you must assert all have inability
Ability of A cannot at the same time be inability of A.
If you have ability to make a child, you have inability to do it with your own body alone
And?
If you have ability to identify self, then you have inability to define what isnt self outside of self
So if people dont have ability to define others, that doesnt even disprove my argument. But nowhere did I make the claim that people cannot define things outside themselves. I merely stated that people claiming ownership of others results in contradiction. What you are saying has nothing to do with any of my arguments.
If you have ability to determine what is true, then you must acknowledge your inability to know all truths,
Each person can determine truth regarding their own body. Other option is that no one can determine truth, which is self defeating. So if your claim is that no one can determine truth, such claim likewise wouldnt be true by your own logic.
you are unable to ascertain or verify self and truth outside yourself.
I am sure people have eyes and senses and logic which are used to verify truth outside themselves. But again, I dont see what does that have to do with my arguments. People cannot impose their truth on others, and that argument still remains true. So instead of saying irrelevant things, maybe you can try solving the contradiction:
Because 1 would enable anyone to impose truth on anyone and negate anyone's truth, it is self contradicting.
So it is either 1 or 2, and 1 is self contradictive.
So unless you can provide explanation how 1 isnt contradictive, the only thing remaining is 2.
Because 1 obviously requires that certain person or group is "superior" in justification in order to be justified imposing, and justification itself requires ability to determine justification as valid, and this ability likewise cannot be decided to belong to any specific group alone.
So if no specific group holds "special power" to make valid justification, no valid justification can be made by any group.
Arbitrary justifications are not enough and these can be made by anyone, thus useful to no one.
Sure, if person wants to be called that.
The principal is inherently false, it attempts to insinuate knowledge of truth.
It is false because it attempts to be true?
Your principal of powers is also false. Not only do you undermine free will as to attain to what powers you desire, you also actively disregard the natural and inherit inabilities that are in similar nature of that power.
I suggest writing your counter argument in a more logical form. Free will wasnt even mentioned by me. Also, ability to determine who has no ability is self contradictive, because you cant decide who has that ability.
This should cover my position on many issues without me directly arguing for anything too sensitive. So if this open forum has a response, they are welcome to give it.
Theorem: Body Ownership is Inalienable
Axioms / Principles
Principle of Equal Powers (PEP): Any ability given to one person must, by fairness, be given to all.
Types of Abilities:
Among the abilities covered by PEP are:
a. The ability to determine truth.
b. The ability to determine moral truth.
c. The ability to determine what counts as sufficient justification.
Definition of Ownership: To own X means no one else may rightfully remove X from the owner.
Proof Step 1. Consider body ownership.
There are two possible assignments of ability:
Case A: A person has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.
Case B: A person does not have that ability.
Step 2. Suppose Case A is true.
Then, by PEP, if one person can decide a justification for stripping body ownership, all people must have the same ability.
Step 3. If all people can decide what counts as sufficient justification, then:
For any reason whatsoever, anyone could declare another person’s body ownership void.
Since this ability is universal, everyone can simultaneously void everyone else’s ownership.
Step 4. If everyone can void everyone else’s ownership, then secure body ownership does not exist.
Contradiction: “ownership” cannot exist if no one can securely hold it (by Axiom 3).
Step 5. Therefore, Case A is impossible.
Step 6. By elimination, only Case B remains: no one has the ability to decide when others lose body ownership.
Step 7. From Case B, it follows that body ownership is inalienable: each person necessarily owns their own body, and this cannot be revoked by others.
Corollary: Application to Trans Kids
Ownership of one’s body includes authority to decide what to do with it, including medical choices. Denying a trans child the right to make medical decisions about their body would mean granting others the ability to decide when body ownership can be overridden. By the proof above, such a power cannot be selectively granted; if granted at all, it must be universal, which destroys ownership. Therefore, denying trans kids’ medical decisions on body ownership grounds is logically impossible.
Lex Talionis is a principle which says that any ability given to one person must be given to all.
What does this mean?
Abilities such as:
Think about what this means in case of body ownership.
There are only two options:
Should 2 be given to one person, it would be given to all, and no contradiction would follow.
But if 1 were to be given to one person, per Lex Talionis, it would be given to all. But then, a contradiction follows. If everyone has ability to deny everyone of body ownership, then no one can have body ownership.
Likewise, it doesnt matter which justification person uses to deny body ownership. The ability to determine sufficient justification would per Lex Talionis likewise be universal. So anyone could for any reason deny body ownership of anyone.
Because 1 is objectively false, only 2 can be true: person cannot determine when other people lose body ownership.
Because no one can take away body ownership from others, it follows that everyone has body ownership.
This includes trans kids. In other words, they own their bodies, and thus can make modifications to their bodies at will.
So if doctor approves, and parents provide money for surgery, it is not possible to logically deny trans kids of surgery.
Are you sure that it is not you who makes up such ideas?
WHEN PERSON WRITES LIKE THIS, IT IS CONSIDERED YELLING!
But yeah, too much hate online to be able to debate anything. I think even free speech doesnt help when one of us is incapable to understand the other.
You are a bitchy and petty asshole if you think calling Caitlyn Jenner a man is the same as taking away their human rights because you disagree with a classificationist issue
I dont think misgendering is any serious crime. I just consider it not polite for me to use it.
You can say that, but many even oppose trans gender care. So I would say there are people trying to decide how much body ownership can other people have. Now, I also support self-determination when it comes to names. I dont give people names. People tell me their names and that is how I call them. Tho I understand one can use freedom to give people names.
If your position is obvious, then you should be able to convince people in an open forum
All I get in an open forum is yelling and insults. So from my conclusion, either I am completely dumb either my opponents are all braindead, and neither option really favors me in any way in a discussion. So I dont really have plans of convincing people into anything. If they will change their minds in future, they will do so anyway irrelevant of if I debate them or not, and if they wont, they wont.
Being gay was illegal for a long time. Popular masses are only capable of seeing the present. They dont know the past, nor the future!