Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (56888)	9/5/2002 12:31:32 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

<If you call subjective rules rules, we have a problem of communication.> Hmm. I thought you were a lawyer. You don't consider the Law subjective? But it isn't without rules. The rules of football are based upon the call of the referee. Subjective. Honor is as some group calls it. Subjective. Cowardly is as another group calls it. Subjective. But these aren't things without ANY rules. QED: Systems with rules ultimately can be subjective, but aren't necessarily so. Second point. Some rules come from outside the system and can't be analyzed from within. Revisit Goedel. In every consistent system there are some propositions that can't be answered within that system. We struggle with one now -- but that doesn't make these propositions true no matter how we want it to be the case. I can't see into the mind of a sentient entity that towers over me any more than the ant in my front yard can run my computer. <IMO you have made a statement that in internally inconsistent and then shrugging your shoulders and saying you can't know. > I didn't create the inconsistency. How would any of us have knowledge of whether sentience has a fixed number of hierarchies or an infinite one? One can assume that there is an ultimate, unbounded entity, but they are bound by the paradox of their own supremacy. They must have the power to do that which they can't undo, or they aren't unbounded. Can everything be undone? Observational evidence and my human experience says no. Glasses don't unbreak themselves. All human endeavors seem to be wrong at some level so any conjecture based upon the writings of men, must by definition be suspect. And since there are many inconsistencies between all religious writings, there is at least the possibility that ALL are wrong. You muddy the issue by citing systems that have some rules, but not hard ones. There is a mathematical name for this: these are infinite but bounded systems. An example is the number of points on a perfect sphere. It is infinite set, but bound by the "rules" of being a sphere. In some ways it is infinite, in others it isn't. But you have yet to give an example of a system with NO RULES. You are tripping over the modern mathematics of chaos theory. You seem to be proposing a model of Nature that has no natural model. That isn't very logical or probable, IMO. But, guess what? You may be right anyway. And then again, I may have snakes crawling from my head.