[no subject]

>
> If you ever find that fundamental premise and demonstrate that it's untrue, then
> we'll have to go back to the drawing board.  But as Godel demonstrated, there are
> truths that are unprovable.  Give it your best shot.  ;)
>
>  *>> Not like your dogmatic assertions about
>  *>> "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY".
>
>  *>Except those things that are self evidently true because of mathematical
>  *>tautology, I am only completely certain that complete certainty is utterly
>  *>impossible.
>
> "Either it is raining or it isn't".  This is the nature of those things that are
> self evidently true, Cooter.  Sorta boring to be limited to only statements that

Either its raining or in some way the illusion that it is raining
is occurring or none of the above.

>
> are unnecessarily repetitive.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>I ONLY completely trust deductive inference and pure
>  *>>  *>(as opposed to linguistic) semantics.
>  *>>
>  *>> But if your premise is faulty, even deductive inference can prove an
>  *>absurdity
>  *>> true.  Pure Semantics?  If you can produce a system that doesn't fall prey
>  *>to
>  *>> Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, I'd venture to guess that it wouldn't be
>  *>> sufficiently powerful to do ANYTHING.  But you could always prove me,
>  *>Godel, and
>  *>> the worlds mathematicians wrong and become famous.  Your call.
>
>  *>Its like Fulton's Folly on this point, and I have greater aspirations than
>  *>this single point.
>
> You have greater aspirations than to become famous and I'm certain, rich?  Heh.
> That's cool, I guess.  My guess is that you're delusional.
>
>  *>No one with the capacity to understand me can possibly manage to take me
>  *>seriously enough to hear me out.
>
> Now I'm becoming convinced that you're delusional.
>
>  *>> That's nice. Warm fuzzies don't travel well though. ;)
>
>  *>I have specifically derived that mathematics of this. The creation of ALL
>  *>knowledge beginning with no knowledge at all.
>
> Ummm...  Well, seeing what problems you have with zero, I have my doubts about
> the validity of your mathematical derivation.
>
> 0 * infinity = 6  ;)
>
>  *>The very first steps in the prequisite hierarchy of the creation of
>  *>knowledge.
>
> At least with humans and other mammals, I think the first step is the hardwired
> compulsion to suckle.  ;)
>
>  *>Here is a little quiz what it the smallest possible unit of knowledge?
>
> Information theory generally assigns that to the bit.  0-1.  Or True/False if you
> want to go the Logic route.
>

Not quite since a Bit has two states in can be further divided into
each one of these two states separately...

>
>  *>>  *>> You are unable to prove this unless you demonstrate a "perfect
>  *>illusion".
>  *>>  *>;)
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>It needs not be demonstrated, merely conceived.
>  *>>
>  *>> Defined is more like it.  You know that the semantics of the word are
>  *>where the
>  *>> power lies.  If you can't come up with reasonable meaning on what a
>  *>perfect
>  *>> illusion is, it joins other meaningless babble, ill conceived.
>
>  *>The movie name "Matrix" was one good example.
>
> Or Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
>
>  *>The people thought that they lived in cities on Earth, actually they living
>  *>in pods attached to computer simulations.
>
>  *>Everything that they "knew" as real was actually fake.
>
> So?  Even your infallible theoroms can't answer the truth or falsehood of this
> picture.  So we have a premise that can't be proven.  Godel's Incompleteness
> Theorem claims another victim.  ;)
>

Yet this is specifically outside of my defined parameters
of the set of purely conceptual knowledge, this it does
not count at all. This would not be any example of Godel
either, you goofed on this point.

>
>  *>>  *>there are many philosophical thought experiments that make this more
>  *>clear.
>  *>>
>  *>> Agreed.  Omniscience and free will.  If one exists, the other can't.
>
>  *>Actually Omnipotence and Free Will can not possibly co-exist.
>
> Sure... There a a number of others as well.
>
>  *>Omniscience and Free Will can coexist.
>
> Nope.  They can't.  But unlike you, I will not simply assert and scurry off.
>
> An omniscient being would know what color socks I would choose to wear tomorrow.
> If I were to use my free will to choose black socks, but the omniscient being
> knew I would choose white, then the being would be wrong.  If he was wrong, he
> wouldn't be omniscient.
>
> If on the otherhand, all my future choices were known prior to my making them,
> they would be predetermined, and I would have no free will.
>
> Your batting average on refutation and proofs is sinking near .000, dude.  ;)
>

Like I said I have already had a dialogue of many months
and many thousands of words on this point, and truth
has no chance against religious conviction, the former being
rational, and the latter being irrational...

Its a much simpler thing to see that Omnipotence
and Free Will can not coexist, thus an analogous
variation of this same theme is analytically supported.
This is easily resolved though, God specifically chooses
to constantly limit his power, and although he always
remains potentially omnipotent, Free Will continues
to exist, while is is not actually omnipotent. There
is even one valid line-of-reasoning whereby God
is omnipotent and humans continue to have Free
Will... (from the Hindu conception that all is God)

>
>  *>I am not going to get into this though, I tried this once and people tend to
>  *>have such strong attachments to their opinion on this as to defy all reason.
>
> *Snork*  Damn.  I spewed milk and kibble all over my computer screen.  ;)
>
>  *>>  *>The brain in a bottle connected to a computer is one of them.
>  *>>
>  *>> Hmm... Sounds like Dorktor Tom.  With a bad connection at that.  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>How do you know that you are not merely a brain in a bottle connected
>  *>to a
>  *>>  *>computer that artificially simulates your every experience of reality?
>  *>>
>  *>> Being a kitty of the empirical frame of mind, it just wouldn't matter.  If
>  *>I lack
>  *>> the evidence to find out, I'll just let Occam's Razor be my guide and act
>  *>> accordingly.  ;)
>
>  *>This is merely a fallible heuristic.
>
> But I've made no claim to infallibility, Pope Cooter.  ;)
>
>  *>It by no means any possibly form of correct reasoning.
>
> I'm not really sure how to scan that, but let me say that you've not presented
> any supporting evidence that you know how to "correctly reason".  ;)

Basically, it takes one to know one...

>
>  *>>  *>The broadest field that I have ever applied this to is the derivation
>  *>of a
>  *>>  *>computer language compiler that produces mathematically optimal
>  *>>  *>translations.
>  *>>
>  *>> And how does your system compare to Godel's?  And are you familiar with
>  *>those
>  *>> mathematical problems that are difficult if not impossible to solve
>  *>easily?  Like
>  *>> the optimum route a traveling salesman can take while visiting say 20
>  *>cities?
>  *>> How have you demonstrated that you've achieved an optimal translation?  I
>  *>smell
>  *>> yet another unfounded assertion.
>
>  *>Control flow in language translation does not suffer from these limitations.
>
> Uh.. That's another way of saying "grammar".  You're not proposing that grammar
> will solve those types of problems that would would require more computer time to
> solve than the universe is considered to have existed?
>

No that's not merely another way to say Grammar.
Its one subset of what a compiler does...
If you don't know what control flow contructs
are, you lack the basis for me to tell you...
if-then-else
do-while
do-until
do-case

>
> Oh.  More Babble.

Your lack of comprehension does not logically entail my error.

>
>  *>>  *>There can not be a God who IS Love and also promotes hatred, thus the
>  *>"god"
>  *>>  *>who promotes hatred MUST be the wrong guy. In the same way that 5 must
>  *>be
>  *>>  *>numerically greater than 3, this can be known (analytically).
>  *>>
>  *>> Well, you've got a problem if you believe the dogma that there only exists
>  *>ONE
>  *>> omnipotent God.  Who'd be the OTHER omnipotent God them.  ;)
>
>  *>I have carefully studied all of the major religions and they are all (most
>  *>fundamentally) saying the same thing.
>
> I dare you to put that fundamental "thing" in a paragraph, page, paper or book.
> I've seen this assertion often and no one can ever summarize their findings.  You
> would be the first.  Don't disappoint me, Cooter... ;)
>

{All is God}  (even the bible say this)

>
>  *>>  *>Example God exist or God does not exist, that completely covers every
>  *>>  *>possibility within the subject domain of the existence of God. Not the
>  *>>  *>slightest trace of detail has been left out of this subject domain.
>  *>>
>  *>> Just that we are unable to know if this existence is even meaningful.  Let
>  *>me
>  *>> substitute...
>  *>>
>  *>> Example ***** exists or ***** does not exist, that completely covers every
>  *>> possibility within the subject domain of the existence of *****.
>  *>>
>  *>> Unless you define your terms, any constructs you come up with will be
>  *>> meaningless.
>
>  *>To completely define all but the most trivial of terms would typically many
>  *>volumes to be exhaustively complete.
>
> Yet you were claiming to have invented an infallible method using proof by
> Exhaustive Checking.  Are you retracting that claim?
>

No, merely that a human can not do this, that I
why I am developing this into an algorithm...
Its like computing PI to a billion decimal places,
the compound error rate alone would make
this impossible for humans, yet still possible.

>
>  *>One must define the term, then all the terms which were used in this
>  *>definition, on and on recursively so that completely defining most anything
>  *>typically involves defining nearly everything.
>
> Yup.  You've stumbled over Godel's Incompleteness Theorom yet again, but are too
> blind to see.  Perhaps you don't need a shrink, but an optometrist.  ;)
>

Its not analytically impossible, merely too many
details for a human... My algorithm will do it...
Its not infinitely recursive (as Kurt's error)...

>
>  *>> If it gives you a warm fuzzy to know something about a meaningless
>  *>> statement, then go for it.  It hardly matters if no detail has been left
>  *>out,
>  *>> because you provided no detail in the first place.  ;)
>
>  *>The way that I phrased it permitted any specified set of attributes to be
>  *>attached to the term God... In each of these cases, the subject domain was
>  *>complete.
>
> Another substitution:
>
> The way that I phrased it permitted any specified set of attributes to be
> attached to the term *Bandersnatch*... In each of these cases, the subject domain
> was complete.
>
> Perhaps it's complete, but meaningless.

Not at all meaninless, it begins with the typical
set attributes norammly acribed to God, and
works outward...

Here is somethinmg with close to no meaning...

azaxazw  bhyvybbv  aszzxesaaxc

Isn't is weird that the term meaningless
does not mean {with less meaning}
but {utterly devoid of meaning}, this
is one of many examples of fallibility
defined as an intrinsic part of Human
language.

>
>
>  *>> Earlier, you proposed that their work was worthless except as having
>  *>antique
>  *>> novelty value.  Now you propose that it DOES have some value.  Enough
>  *>value to
>  *>> trample on the rights of the copyright holder, disregarding international
>  *>laws in
>  *>> the process.
>
>  *>Enough value to future generations for historical puposes that it MUST be
>  *>maintained...
>
> Heh.  It's done.  That software is archived.  Just not by you.  ;)
>

ONLY because of  "pirates" if it was not for these
"pirates" is will all be gone in very few years...

>
>  *>> Get your story straight or concede that copyright infringement is theft.
>  *>;)

In most cases it is, in some cases its not.
This must be measured against not the letter-of-the-law
but the intent of the law... To categorically say
that in each and every case copyright infringement
if theft, is to make oneself into a mindless automaton...


>
>  *>Theft involves taking something of value...
>
> I've consulted a large number of dictionaries and other sources.  None of them
> had the requirement of "value" in the definition of theft.  If you can find one
> that does, I will accept your appeal to this particular authority.  Please let me
> know the edition, title and such.
>

As I have already said dictionaries are woefully
inadequate in specifying the precise meaning of
any term...  To get a more reasonably correct
definition of this term one must consult law books,
and in these cases there is always some mention
of value... But at this point its proving useless
to continue... If you can see the blatantly
obvious fact that the meaning of theft involves
taking something of value, then you have shown
yourself to be an utterly close-minded
moral dogmatist, that will never be able to use
reasoning in any discussion...

>
> Otherwise, I'm forced to believe that you merely change a words definition to
> suit your argument.  A common enough trait with toiletwater tippling Turlettes,
> but I had higher hopes for you.
>
>  *>In the terms of the copyright owner this value is ONLY defined as commercial
>  *>viability.
>
> Nope.  Read the law.  Commercial viabiliy is never addressed.  Quit lying.
>
>  *>The whole purpose of copyright law is to see that authors can profit
>  *>financially from their creations.
>
> That's correct, for the most part.
>
>  *>The intent of this law is not to make sure that something that is discarded
>  *>by its owner MUST be wasted.
>
> Since this "intent" is based solely on your opinion and you have no backing to
> support it, and the language of the law contradicts your assertion, we can safely
> conclude that you're full of shit.
>
>  *>If a thing has been abandoned by its owners, others have a moral right to
>  *>take it.
>
> Since this "moral right" is based solely on your opinion and you have no backing
> to support it, and the language of the law contradicts your assertion, we can
> safely conclude that you're full of shit.
>
>  *>>  *>They have the right to profit from their work as long as it remains
>  *>>  *>profitable, or the copyright expires, which ever comes first.
>  *>>
>  *>> Alas, Cooter.  Even with your omniscience, you lack the power to predict
>  *>the
>  *>> future.  Therefore, whatever decision you or your fellow Turlettes come up
>  *>with
>  *>> concerning an items value prior to the expiration of the copyright is
>  *>entirely
>  *>> arbitray.  But that doesn't bother you, does it.  As long as you get to
>  *>steal
>  *>> your warez, hmmmm?
>
>  *>I would prefer to but it, but, as a last resort I get it where I can.
>
> I know.  You're a thief.
>
>  *>I will NOT allow it to be wasted merely in the misguided sense of morality.
>
> This stuff is archived.  You just want YOUR copy.  Thief.
>
>  *>I still can't find a copy of Aztec "C" for prodos for sale, in fact the
>  *>first respondent to my request said that he just tossed all this stuff in
>  *>the dumpster just six months ago.
>
> And the second?
>
>  *>Without this "terrible piracy" every single copy of Aztec "C" will be lost
>  *>forever and ever, long before the copyright expires.
>
> Oh?  The archival copies from the legitimate owners don't satisfy your
> kleptomaniacal urges?  You don't trust them to take care of property they've
> invested actual money on, and DO trust thieves?  Says a lot about you, I guess.
> ;)
>
>  *>>  *>They do not have the right to make sure that their work is wasted.
>  *>>
>  *>> Wasted... There's that "valuable worthless software" again.  ;)
>
>  *>Its ONLY value is its historical significance...
>
> And you trust worms whom you would think twice about letting into your home alone
> for any period of time to safeguard this historical software over trusting the
> copyright owner or purchasers of that software?  You're warped.  But we knew
> that.  ;)
>
>  *>It has NO commercial value to its copyright owners. (whom I spent three
>  *>whole days attempting to contact)...
>
> Thank you for trying.  Seriously.  That boosts my opinion of you immeasurably.
>

You see I am not just trying to justify cheating the owners
out of their due. The historical value of the original software
with its original manuals was what I was (and still am)
looking for... But there really isn't any sense letting this
stuff go to waste in the mean time. If these owners cared at
all then either they or someone else would contact them.
They simply don't care because there is no profit in it
for them... There is never again going to be a huge market
for Apple II Dos 3.3 software, and everyone knows it...
It won't be very long before even all of the "pirate"
sites shut down for utter lack of interest, then all of
this history dies...

>
>  *>>  *>> Is it illegal according to the Laws of our country and others to
>  *>infringe
>  *>>  *>on the
>  *>>  *>> protections given these creators...  I refer you to:
>  *>>  *>>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Yup (a) Rule
>  *>>  *>       (b) Break rule
>  *>>  *>       (c) therefore wrong (regardless of harmful effect)
>  *>>
>  *>> So... It's illegal to infringe on the copyright of author.  Nice to win
>  *>that
>  *>> point.  ;)
>
>  *>You win as a Loser.
>
> Ah... Now you're getting crabby. ;)
>
> How are you going to take the current thrashing?  ;)
>
>  *>You hit the mindless conformist jackpot.
>
> I suppose that's better than being a mindless crackpot.  ;)
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat