Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Coot and Paul.
>
>  *>>
>  *>> > Given that A can't be Non A, we both can't be right.
>  *>>
>  *>> According to human logic, yes, however humans are fallible and the
>  *>> world is more complex than we can imagine.  Therefore you shouldn't
>  *>> rule out the possibility that A actually can be Non A, even though
>  *>> human minds would certainly have a hard time to grasp that.
>  *>>
>
>  *>Sorry that's not the way that it works.
>
> I'm afraid Paul is correct here, Coot.  As an example, I give you light and other
> subatomic particles.  They possess the properties of particles (photons in the
> case of light), and the properties of waves (frequency, wavelength).  The
> properties you observe are based entirely on the method you use to make your
> observations.  (photoelectric devices,  diffraction gratings).
>
> This demonstrates the "Wave/Particle Duality of Nature".
>
>  *>I know this from a form of infallible reasoning that I created that derives
>  *>an exhaustively complete categorical enumeration of every possibility.
>
> *Snork* ... YOU created this?  Wow.  Surely you jest.  ;)
>
> You know... there's a distinctive "4D Sound" smell about you Cooter... You're not
> really one of the Dorktor's alternate personalities are you?
>
> I propose you do an "exhaustively complete categorical enumeration of every
> possibility" of a simple electron orbiting a single unassuming hydrogen atom of
> your choice.  If you're correct, we can toss out Heisenberg's Uncertainty
> Principle and you'll be famous.  ;)

This applies to conceptual knowledge, not, necessarily
to empirical knowledge. Try proving that 3 > 5...
I myself was not sufficiently precise in my own statement.

>
>
>  *>"A" can NEVER be Not "A", at the same time that it is "A".
>
> Well, again, I present my example of light in the indeterminant state.  But....
> I'll grant you that outside of the Quantum Mechanics model (in the Big World),
> you're essentially correct.
>
>  *>Every possible attempt to show otherwise results only from a lack of
>  *>precision in the linguistic representation of the potential counterexample.
>
> This sounds suspiciously like the "Moving Goalposts" fallacy.  If someone comes
> up with an example, you'd just state that it's not precise enough.

In this case it was my lack of precision, of qualifying the
limitation to the conceptual knowledge domain.

>
>
>  *>>
>  *>> > How to demonstrate to others that their conceptional framework is not
>  *>> > true to the world as it is, is the problem.
>  *>>
>
> Well... Proving a Universal Negative is generally regarded as impossible, unless
> you construct your model well enough to attain a contradiction, like Coot
> continues to claim can occur in all possibilities.
>
>  *>It is mostly human pride that gets in the way of this.
>
> I'd say it was mostly human ignorance.

And this ignorance is caused by pride. People
have such strong emotional attachment to their
own opinions that they can't get past the posssibility
that they might be incorrect, far enough to pay
any attention at all to other points of view. In
other words pride causes willful ignorance.

>
>
>  *>>
>  *>> An equally important problem is how for you to demonstrate to yourself
>  *>> that your conceptional framework is not true to the world as it is.
>  *>> I mean, if other humans can be wrong, why can't you be wrong?
>  *>>
>
>  *>A derived form that I  (accurately) call limited subject domain omniscience.
>
> This is SO cute, Coot.  ;)  Do you impress many folks with this pseudo-
> intellectual babble?
>
>  *>I can know everything that can ever possibly be known about a very specific
>  *>subject.
>
> I'm game.  What's the position AND momentum of a single electron about a hydrogen
> atom of your choice?  (Yeah, yeah... Heisenberg again..)
>
>  *>>
>  *>> > Using the sword, as Islam has done, or torture and brainwashing as
>  *>> > Marxism has done, isn't an option for a Christian,
>  *>>
>  *>> Utter nonsense!  Christians too have used both the sword (in e.g.
>  *>> their crusades) and torture and brainwashing (in e.g. the
>  *>> inquisition), and they may very well have inspired Muslims and
>  *>> Marxists to later do the same!  The name of the game is the same in
>  *>> all three cases: to gain, and maintain, political power.  It's
>  *>> well-known that power corrupts, and you're making a mistake in
>  *>> believing Christians are immune to such corruption: they too are
>  *>> sinful humans, just like anyone else - right?
>  *>>
>
>  *>These are examples of corrupt people that merely called themselves
>  *>Christian.
>
> Gee... the "True Scotsman" fallacy again.  You can do better than this, Cooter..
>
>  *>>
>  *>> The Islamic world of today is pretty similar to the Christian
>  *>> world in medieveal times: back then the Church was in power,
>  *>> fundamentalism was the rule rather than the exception, and it
>  *>> was your duty as a citizen to be a Christian who visited the
>  *>> church every sunday - and you were punished if you didn't
>  *>> fullfill these duties.
>  *>>
>  *>> > not to say that some calling themselves Christians haven't tried it.
>  *>>
>  *>> Aaah, I see -- Christians who use the sword or torture aren't "real
>  *>> Christians".  Well, we can use the same terminology on Muslims and
>  *>> Marxists: if they use sword and/ord torture they're not "real
>  *>> Muslims" or "real Marxists" but merely corrupted power-hungry
>  *>> people, using Marxism, Islam or Christianity as a disguise, depending
>  *>> on what's most fashionable in their time and their part of the world!
>  *>>
>
>  *>His assessment can be known to be true, analytically.
>
> OK.. Let's analyize this....
>
>  *>It is analytically true that an expression of violence is the antithesis of
>  *>an expression of love, and Christ said to "Love your enemies", thus utterly
>  *>disproving that those using violence in their Christianity were Christian in
>  *>the use of this violence.
>
> Matthew 10
>
> 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in
> heaven.
> 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to
> bring peace, but a sword.

I can't get past this myself so I ignore it.
It is interesting to note that the Christ
of the book of Revelation and Lucifer
of the book of Isaiah have the same
nickname in the NIV translation...
Morning Star...

Unlike most others, I approach my theology, not
by the rote letter-of-the-law,  nor by the rote
word-of-God, but, by the comprehension of the
reasoning that lies underneath the words.

Comprehension is the ONLY way to truth,
belief (and disbelief) are mere stumbling blocks.

>
> 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her
> mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
>
> Luke 14
>
> 26 "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife
> and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be
> my disciple.
>
> Mark 14
>
> 21 For the Son of man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom
> the Son of man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not
> been born."
>
> I could continue, Coot... I got a million of 'em..  I hope you noted that these
> were spoken by Jesus hisself.
>

Ah, or at least attributed to him.
I always consider every possibility
until they have been utterly disproven.

>
>  *>Note that what I say here is no mere fallible human opinion, but can be
>  *>derived purely analytically, thus not subject to human error.
>
> Well... all I can do is wave Godel and Heisenberg at you and hope you actually
> seek a proper education.  ;)
>

Now I do know Kurt, he is within my field, and he erred
in his famous "Incompleteness Theorem"...

>
>  *>>
>  *>> I think you'll agree that it is VERY UNFAIR to compare non-corrupt
>  *>> Christians with corrupt Moslems or corrupt Marxists.  Why not turn
>  *>> the tables and compare non-corrupt Moslems or non-corrupt Marxists
>  *>> with copprupt Christians?  Try THAT for a change -- you'll quickly
>  *>> see how unfair that it.  Then open your eyes and see that your way
>  *>> is just as unfair.
>  *>>
>
>  *>Focus ONLY on righteousness, and unrighteousness will leave (at least you)
>  *>on its own.
>
> Yeah!  Does this mean you're going to stop stealing software and become
> righteous, Coot?
>

Taking something that the owners have abandoned
is not stealing. If the owners have not abandoned it
they they could be found, since they can not be found
we can reasonably construe that they have abandoned it.

>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat