Human Rights

[Danoff]

Okay, but that is not an end. That is means...to what end? Unless the end is arguing (for the sake of arguing). Is it?

Why is it not sufficient for me to simply want to clarify the confusion of others? People rely on these concepts, they make decisions, important decisions based on these concepts. Why is it not enough for me to want to help people understand?

It's not for the sake of argument, it's for the sake of understanding.

Edit:

Ok, enough humoring you. Time to answer the question.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Why is it not sufficient for me to simply want to clarify the confusion of others? People rely on these concepts, they make decisions, important decisions based on these concepts. Why is it not enough for me to want to help people understand?

It's not for the sake of argument, it's for the sake of understanding.

Edit:

Ok, enough humoring you. Time to answer the question.

I told you it can be sufficient. Arguing for the sake of arguing is a valid "end". I was just giving you a chance to clear it up.

I'd tell you why the answer to your question mattered, but you already proved my argument yourself in the other thread.

No. Because logic, despite being concrete, relies on a universe that doesn't change at whim to have meaning.

Then it's not logic, plain and simple. Now let's stop this **** so I can tell you my opinion and move on.


I somewhat agree with your "logic" of rights. I live by them most of the time, and I have demonstrated that on this forum before as I've told @niky some time ago.

GT6 is leaked in Bahrain early. I spent basically two full days (and then some) answering questions, taking screenshots and videos and uploading them. Why? Because when/if I am in that position(of the GTP members), I want to have the right to ask the member with the leaked game questions too.

Also, the youtube channel. I could've monitized it, and made at least a full wallet just from the videos uploaded. Or even take advantage of the whole thing, and make it a part time job like most youtubers. I didn't. Why not? Because I want to have the right to complain about assholes that monetize their channels, which means it has annoying freaking ads.

See? Follows your logic, does it not?

 

[Danoff]

Then it's not logic, plain and simple. Now let's stop this **** so I can tell you my opinion and move on.

Not sure where to begin. Your misunderstanding of logic, or of my statement. Perhaps the fastest way to address this is simply to say that this statement:

Because logic, despite being concrete, relies on a universe that doesn't change at whim to have meaning.

...applies, in exactly the same way, to math.

 

[BHRxRacer]

...applies, in exactly the same way, to math.

1+1=2 can't be questioned at any level.

 

[Danoff]

1+1=2 can't be questioned at any level.

Wrong.

Math, despite being concrete, relies on a universe that doesn't change at whim to have meaning. Otherwise it's just a self-consistent thought exercise. Math has no meaning in a dream.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Wrong.

Right.

Math, despite being concrete, relies on a universe that doesn't change at whim to have meaning. Otherwise it's just a self-consistent thought exercise. Math has no meaning in a dream

I'll pull one out of @Famine 's book and call that irrelevant.

 

[Famine]

Right.

I'll pull one out of @Famine 's book and call that irrelevant.

1+1=10

I just questioned 1+1=2 in an entirely valid and factually correct manner. Guess you're wrong to say it can't be questioned at any level then.

 

[BHRxRacer]

1+1=10

I just questioned 1+1=2 in an entirely valid and factually correct manner. Guess you're wrong to say it can't be questioned at any level then.

Took you a long time to do something like this.

1+1= 10 can't be questioned at any level either.

 

[Famine]

Took you a long time to do something like this

Not really. Try reading this and the Do You Believe In God threads.

1+1= 10 can't be questioned at any level either.

Yes it can.

1+1 != 10
1+1 = 2

 

[BHRxRacer]

1+1 != 10
1+1 = 2

That set of operations is still consistent, so it STILL can't be questioned at any level either.

Try again.

 

[Danoff]

1+1=2 can't be questioned at any level.

Why do you think 1+1=2? Just because every time you add two things together you don't get a third thing popping into existence? How do you know that doesn't happen? Perhaps a third thing appears on the other side of the galaxy every time a human adds two things together. Perhaps our reality is a computer simulation, and every time two things are added together in the REAL reality they disappear. People in that universe, in order to save it from collapsing, created a simulation that they put their brains in of a universe where such a thing doesn't happen - that's where we live.

You have no idea whether 1+1=2. You don't even know that two things exist to add together. You do not know the nature of your universe, so you cannot know if math or logic is correct.

I'll pull one out of @Famine 's book and call that irrelevant.

It is exactly relevant to the topic at hand. If there is any possible scenario in which it doesn't hold up... poof... I win. Any scenario no matter how ridiculous. I have already won. You just haven't figured it out.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Why do you think 1+1=2?

Is that a serious question? Because a serious answer would require hours of pure mathematics lectures/tutions. You'll have to pay me for those.

There is of course, a simple/common answer but if you can add two numbers together I'm sure you're capable of answering that yourself.

Just because every time you add two things together you don't get a third thing popping into existence?

I have one apple, then I bought another apple. Now I have two apples.

Works every time, does it not?


If you say something like "what if your cat ate the Apple while you were outside buying another Apple" I'm taking off.

You have no idea whether 1+1=2

I do. I don't think you do, but I do.

so you cannot know if math or logic is correct.

The absurdity of that comment is why I started this discussion with you in the first place.

 

[Imari]

Is that a serious question? Because a serious answer would require hours of pure mathematics lectures/tutions. You'll have to pay me for those.

There is of course, a simple/common answer but if you can add two numbers together I'm sure you're capable of answering that yourself.

The point is to prove that you know, because at this point it's very debatable whether you actually understand the common answer if you think that 1+1=2 is unassailable.

The absurdity of that comment is why I started this discussion with you in the first place.

That you find that comment absurd sort of indicates that you don't understand the underlying principles upon which logic and math are built at all.

 

[BHRxRacer]

The point is to prove that you know, because at this point it's very debatable whether you actually understand the common answer if you think that 1+1=2 is unassailable.



That you find that comment absurd sort of indicates that you don't understand the underlying principles upon which logic and math are built at all.

Prove that I know...what? The serious answer or the simple one? Do you?

I don't think you understand the serious answer, or a serious answer about the fundamentals of logic.

"Rights" can be logical in a certain, very narrow and non universal frame work. That does not mean that "Rights" = Logic.

 

[Imari]

Prove that I know...what? The serious answer or the simple one? Do you?

I don't think you understand the serious answer, or a serious answer about the fundamentals of logic.

"Rights" can be logical in a certain, very narrow and non universal frame work. That does not mean that "Rights" = Logic.

Try me. I'm not as dumb as I look.

If I don't understand, someone here will and they will probably be nice enough to help me through it. Not you, obviously. You think I'm too dumb to understand anyway so you'll just take it as a sign that you're right.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Try me. I'm not as dumb as I look.

If I don't understand, someone here will and they will probably be nice enough to help me through it. Not you, obviously. You think I'm too dumb to understand anyway so you'll just take it as a sign that you're right.

Not at all. I apologize if I gave you that impression.

It has nothing to do with your intelligence really, just your knowledge of pure mathematics. For me to help you through is not as easy of a task as you think it is. It's a very long topic with its own prerequisites of knowledge that I also don't think you posses. It's also something I would not do on a public forum for free It's nothing to be ashamed of or anything. It's not your field

 

[Imari]

Not at all. I apologize if I gave you that impression.

It has nothing to do with your intelligence really, just your knowledge of pure mathematics. For me to help you through is not as easy of a task as you think it is. It's a very long topic with its own prerequisites of knowledge that I also don't think you posses. It's also something I would not do on a public forum for free It's nothing to be ashamed of or anything. It's not your field

Again, try me. You don't know what my level of education or my field is.

Even if you're an actual mathematician, as long as you're using terms that I can look up I can probably educate myself to the level that I can at least comprehend what you're saying inside of an evening. I'm not completely ignorant of mathematics, I can't afford to be.

I think you're appealing to authority that you don't have. Give us the shorthand, professional explanation. Give us a reference to what you would talk about, were you to do it on a public forum for free. If you were speaking to another mathematician, you wouldn't explain the whole thing to them, you'd just say "yeah, because of the axiom of hooberjoo and the fiddle-de-dee theorems" or some other hand wavy thing, and rely on them to pick up what you mean. Do that.

Do something rather than "oh, I couldn't explain it to you, it'd go over your head". That's just rude. I'll be the one to tell you when you're in over my head.

Seriously, in the time you've spent avoiding explaining this so far, you could have just written half a dozen paragraphs and made us all a little wiser.

 

[BHRxRacer]

You don't know what my level of education or my field is.

You're right, but neither do you know mine. Why did you ask me to prove if I can provide an answer to 1+1=2? Are you trying to test me, or are you trying to learn?

Even if you're an actual mathematician,

Let me make something clear in case you haven't followed my posts in the god thread. I try as much as I can not to disclose facts about myself or my personal life, so I'm not going to give you an answer to what my academic degrees are in or what I do for a living.

I'm not completely ignorant of mathematics, I can't afford to be.

Of course not. Who said that you are?

I think you're appealing to authority that you don't have.

That's just rude.

So you are trying to test me.

Give us the shorthand, professional explanation. Give us a reference to what you would talk about, were you to do it on a public forum for free. If you were speaking to another mathematician, you wouldn't explain the whole thing to them, you'd just say "yeah, because of the axiom of hooberjoo and the fiddle-de-dee theorems" or some other hand wavy thing, and rely on them to pick up what you mean. Do that.

Giving you a shorthand regarding such things often does more harm than not. Why would you want to know the shorthand? Most people just take that to enforce whatever fallacy they believe to be true. Others, want to know the shorthand so they can argue with other people. If that happens, and you argue with a professional with only a shorthand, he'll ask you questions you cannot answer because you didn't learn everything.

Do something rather than "oh, I couldn't explain it to you, it'd go over your head". That's just rude. I'll be the one to tell you when you're in over my head.

I apologized once if I implied you're inferior or anything like that. I won't apologize again.

I'll explain one last time. It's not that it'd go over your head, there's TOO MUCH of it to pass on to you it's impossible to do it over one day.

Seriously, in the time you've spent avoiding explaining this so far, you could have just written half a dozen paragraphs and made us all a little wiser.

That's the thing, it won't make you wiser. Shorthands don't do that, as explained above. If you're desperate for one to be "wiser", wikipedia's all yours.

There are many other reasons not to give you a full explanation (time, constraints, how rudely you're trying to test me).

Now I do have a sneaky suspcion that someone's putting you up to this to try to test me, I'll be the nice guy and give you something to go with. Peanu postulate. Go ahead.

 

[Imari]

Peanu postulate. Go ahead.

I'm going to assume you mean Peano, which is exactly what I thought you were talking about, and it damn well doesn't take pages to give a summary of that. Hell, all you had to say was that and we're on the same page already. Those who don't know can go Wiki it, and it gives a good enough explanation if you have any semblance of a mathematical background.

Was that really so hard? We're both educated people, it serves neither of us for you to pretend that the knowledge you have is held by you and you alone.

The point is then that 1+1=2 isn't unassailable. It requires a set of axioms for which 1+1 really does equal 2. Those axioms are completely arbitrary, as all axioms are. They're chosen because they create a mathematical framework which has proven to be useful.

There are sets of axioms for which 1+1 does not equal 2, and as @Famine so kindly pointed out (and any computer scientist will tell you), that specific construct is also somewhat dependent on the base you're working in, although that's kind of nitpicky.

So why are you working so hard to make out that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth? It's a logical conclusion from a very strict set of axioms, that's all. You stated that 1+1=2 can't be questioned on any level, and that's clearly not true if we're talking about the axioms that make up mathematics.


To all the rest of the personal stuff, I'm not asking you to disclose information about yourself and I'm not about to tell you stuff about me either. But given that we're not going to swap details, I think it's good if you have an awareness that I'm not going to take your word that you're an authority on anything. If you want me or others to accept that you have a deep knowledge of fundamental mathematics, it takes more than you saying "well, I'd tell you but you just wouldn't understand". That comes across as trying to avoid the point, regardless of what your actual intention was.

If you're going to bring up stuff like this, be prepared to get into talking about it or don't bring it up at all. Throwing stuff into the conversation and then refusing to talk about it gets us nowhere.

 

[BHRxRacer]

I'm going to assume you mean Peano, which is exactly what I thought you were talking about, and it damn well doesn't take pages to give a summary of that.

Actually, to explain all the possible axioms and why they exist would take quite a long time. If one were to explain 1+1=2 such that there can be absolutely no nitpicking, or nested-nitpicking, would take an insanely long time.

Was that really so hard? We're both educated people, it serves neither of us for you to pretend that the knowledge you have is held by you and you alone.

I never did. You were getting all defensive saying "I'm not that dumb" and "I don't do logical statements everyday".

The point is then that 1+1=2 isn't unassailable. It requires a set of axioms for which 1+1 really does equal 2. Those axioms are completely arbitrary, as all axioms are. They're chosen because they create a mathematical framework which has proven to be useful.

Did you miss the part about "rights" having a very narrow frame work rendering it useless?

You certainly missed that part.

There are sets of axioms for which 1+1 does not equal 2, and as @Famine so kindly pointed out (and any computer scientist will tell you), that specific construct is also somewhat dependent on the base you're working in, although that's kind of nitpicky.

Actually it's not nitpicky enough, if you're going to nitpick.

So why are you working so hard to make out that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth?

A story from school when I was a kid.

*Teacher writes -6+2= ??*
Teacher: Kids, can we perform this operation? Is this "true"?
Student M(in a serious tone): No
Teacher: Why not?
Student M: Because there's no question on the board asking us to solve it.


You guys here always remind me of that kid, and I hope you appreciate how much we laughed our asses off at him, and how the teacher's jaw dropped through the floor. You may call him a potential philosopher, but that's not the discussion.

If you're going to be that kid, then yeah of course nothing is the absolute truth. Obviously though, we're all educated enough to know that:

1+1= 2
1+1= 10
1+1= 1

Each of those is the "absolute truth", in their respective system. I find it childish to perform such nitpicking and steer off topic.

I think it's good if you have an awareness that I'm not going to take your word that you're an authority on anything.

What the hell?

Who asked you to take my word for anything? Danoff asked a question, I asked if it's serious because I couldn't tell what his intention is by the question. What he was driving at.

If you want me or others to accept that you have a deep knowledge of fundamental mathematics, it takes more than you saying "well, I'd tell you but you just wouldn't understand".

What? I did not declare that I have a deep knowledge of fundamental mathematics. I did not say that you would not understand.

I've explained this 3 times now.

Throwing stuff into the conversation and then refusing to talk about it gets us nowhere.

Throwing what up? You threw it up. You asked me to verify how I know 1+1=2. The answer to that is TOO long and infeasible to be discussed on a forum. That's not me refusing to talk about it, that's you making an infeasible request.

 

[Famine]

Each of those is the "absolute truth", in their respective system.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Question either of them at any level or run away from the topic like you accused SuperCobra jet of doing.

 

[Famine]

Do you not see the contradiction that is that sentence? Do you really read that and think "Yeah, that makes sense"?

Really?

 

[BHRxRacer]

Guess who decided to nitpick and prove my point

Yes I see the contradiction. I already said pages ago that @Danoff 's interpretation of rights is logical within a narrow framework. Isn't this what you're trying to get it?

 

[Famine]

Guess who decided to nitpick and prove my point

Not at all. You're adamant that 1+1=2 is absolute truth. You're adamant that 1+1=10 is absolute truth. You're adamant that neither can be questioned at any level ever because they are absolute truth - despite being mutually exclusive.

And then you throw in the qualifier "in their respective system", which utterly blows the concept of "absolute truth" out of the water. Something cannot be absolute if it is subjective.

Yes I see the contradiction.

If you did you wouldn't have posted that sentence.

I already said pages ago that @Danoff 's interpretation of rights is logical within a narrow framework. Isn't this what you're trying to get it?

Nope, because that's demonstrably wrong.

 

[Touring Mars]

You're adamant that 1+1=10 is absolute truth.

There are 10 types of people in this world - those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

[Imari]

I did not say that you would not understand.

I'm sorry, say what?

I don't think you understand the serious answer, or a serious answer about the fundamentals of logic.

It has nothing to do with your intelligence really, just your knowledge of pure mathematics. For me to help you through is not as easy of a task as you think it is. It's a very long topic with its own prerequisites of knowledge that I also don't think you posses.

You said very clearly, twice, that I wouldn't understand, even though you know nothing about me. Then you give out one phrase and it turns out to be something I'm already familiar with, albeit not intimately, it's not my primary field.

You strongly implied that you had at least an above average knowledge of mathematics throughout, what other sort of person would be in a position to give extended lectures on the subject? (But not on a free forum, implying that in fact you are sometimes paid for this service, although it could simply be a throwaway comment about being paid for your time regardless of the use it's put to.)

And you wonder why I and other people find you difficult to talk to.

Cut the BS, and simply communicate with us like normal people. Most of this page of discussion could have been avoided if you just got straight to the point.


So now that you've retracted your statement that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth, I suppose we can get back to how it relates to human rights. I'll leave that to others, I just couldn't stand seeing such an obviously incorrect statement go uncorrected.

 

[Danoff]

If you're going to be that kid, then yeah of course nothing is the absolute truth.

Great! I'll take that as an apology. It's wrong though.

There is one thing that is absolute truth - that you know you exist (given a very specific definition of "you"). But yes, math can be questioned on that level. And you were wrong to say that it can't be questioned on any level:

1+1=2 can't be questioned at any level.

So now, back to the statement that got us here in the first place.

Then it's not logic, plain and simple. Now let's stop this **** so I can tell you my opinion and move on.

It is logic, but logic is not absolute truth. Though it is, literally, the next-best thing to absolute truth.

 

[Dotini]

It is logic, but logic is not absolute truth. Though it is, literally, the next-best thing to absolute truth.

Sometimes an attractive, useful or necessary lie is preferable to an ugly truth.

 

[BHRxRacer]

Not at all. You're adamant that 1+1=2 is absolute truth. You're adamant that 1+1=10 is absolute truth. You're adamant that neither can be questioned at any level ever because they are absolute truth - despite being mutually exclusive.

And then you throw in the qualifier "in their respective system", which utterly blows the concept of "absolute truth" out of the water. Something cannot be absolute if it is subjective.

If you look closely, you'll find that I put absolute truth under quote marks. Would you like to take a guess why? That's right, because it's not my word, it's Imari's.

What you and I were discussing was whether or not you can question them at any level. You can't. Obviously if you throw it out there without defining the framework, it can be wrong depending on the system. However, since we can all easily guess which framework we're dealing with, we KNOW that it can't be questioned at any level.

Nope, because that's demonstrably wrong.

Demonstrate how any logical rights system is consistent across all humans.

Edit-
As in, turn it into a law etc.

I'm sorry, say what?

You said very clearly, twice, that I wouldn't understand, even though you know nothing about me. Then you give out one phrase and it turns out to be something I'm already familiar with, albeit not intimately, it's not my primary field.

You strongly implied that you had at least an above average knowledge of mathematics throughout, what other sort of person would be in a position to give extended lectures on the subject? (But not on a free forum, implying that in fact you are sometimes paid for this service, although it could simply be a throwaway comment about being paid for your time regardless of the use it's put to.)

And you wonder why I and other people find you difficult to talk to.

Cut the BS, and simply communicate with us like normal people. Most of this page of discussion could have been avoided if you just got straight to the point.


So now that you've retracted your statement that 1+1=2 is an absolute truth, I suppose we can get back to how it relates to human rights. I'll leave that to others, I just couldn't stand seeing such an obviously incorrect statement go uncorrected.

If you read again, you'll find that I acted like a math god only when you called ME stupid and the other time was after YOU called yourself stupid.

I retracted nothing. It was a joke.

Great! I'll take that as an apology. It's wrong though.

So you believe NOTHING is the absolute truth? Not even your own existence?

There is one thing that is absolute truth - that you know you exist (given a very specific definition of "you").

Absolute truth + Given a very specific definition of truth = contradiction.

See what I mean?

But yes, math can be questioned on that level. And you were wrong to say that it can't be questioned on any level:

Logic and math themselves can't be questioned. Examples of them can be questioned, but what the WORD ITSELF implies cannot be questioned.

It is logic, but logic is not absolute truth.

It is. This is a paradox

Logic = absolute truth

Applications of logic (decimal arithmetic, rights, whatever) are only absolute truths in a specific framework. Which means they're not absolute truth, and thus not logic itself.