Re: Source Code for OS?

[olcott <olcott@qwest.net>]

Quantum_Cat wrote:

> Hiya, Coot.
>
>  *>There exists a whole body of knowledge that is purely conceptual, Kant would
>  *>call it Pure A Priori. Carnap would call it analytical.
>
> Even Kant acknowledged that all knowledge was based on experience, (i.e.
> empirical knowledge).  From the introduction of his "Critique of Pure Reason"...
>
> "There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with
> experience."
>
> and
>
> "Experience is therefore our first instruction, and in its progress is so
> inexhaustible in new information, that in the interconnected lives of all future
> generations there will never be any lack of new knowledge that can be thus
> ingathered"
>
> So much for your reduction of knowledge to "all possibilities are examined"
>
> Kant's based his Transcendental Philosophy on "a Priori" as you've said, but THAT
> is based on "knowledge absolutely independent of all experience."
>
> What the hell is THAT?  You're treading in La-La Land here, Cooter..
>

How about ALL of mathematics?

>
>  *>> In that "domain", anything goes.  I know you find particular comfort in
>  *>this
>  *>> domain because you don't have to prove or defend anything here.  You will
>  *>NEVER
>  *>> achieve precision here because it's all quicksand and opinion.
>  *>>
>
>  *>No its not... The whole body of purely conceptual knowledge is immutable.
>
> Immutable?  You've GOT to be kidding!  If it doesn't have observation or reality
> to constrain it, it can be ANYTHING!  Just because Kant and others built
> themselves a playground where they could ramble without fear of stumbling upon
> ugly facts doesn't mean this "domain" of knowledge actually exists.  ;)
>

Again, ALL of Mathematics forms this specific example.

>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>And this ignorance is caused by pride.
>  *>>
>  *>> Heh.  I'd say it was caused by folks not knowing something.  ;)
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>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.
>  *>>
>  *>> LOL!  I'd point out that this fits you to a Tee, but you'll probably
>  *>ignore it
>  *>> too.  ;)
>
>  *>You have not presenting any REASONING here for me to pay attention to.
>  *>Merely a bald assertion.
>
> OK.  Your point: "People have such strong emotional attachment to their own
> opinions that they can't get past the posssibility that they might be incorrect"
>
> In the numerous instances where I refuted your argument (A vs NOT A and the Wave/
> Particle Duality of Nature}, and your assertions that full and complete knowledge
> was possible (I used Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle to refute this), and

I qualified this to be full and complete analytical knowledge,
we many never no with absolute certainty many things
that can only be known empirically. Example... to know
that unicorns do not exist anywhere requires omniscience.

Things that can be known categorically (all of analytical
knowledge) can be exhaustively enumerated...

>
> finally when I used Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to demonstrate yet again that
> there are truths and falsehoods that are unprovable.
>

And neither can you proof that Kurt did not err, as I
have postulated. His error was that his reasoning was
infinitely recursive, just like the error in the Liar Paradox.
This would be somewhat analgous to circular reasoning,
although far more subtle to detect.

>
> In each case, there was no acknowledgement that you might be incorrect.  Instead,
> your emotional attachment caused you to weave and dodge, ignoring at least two of
> my points, and asserting that Godel was wrong in the third.
>

With analytical truth ALL can be fully known by the
mere meaning of the words, thus within this domain
the possibility of error can be utterly eliminated.

>
> Continuing: "far enough to pay any attention at all to other points of view."
>
> I present my Biblical posts that refuted your claim of Christ's "Love and
> Kindness" and use your own words, "I ignore it"..  As you ignored many other
> points of view.  ;)
>

Let me phrase what I said, differently.
I reject that it was actually Christ that
said those words. The scripture errs
in its attribution in this case.

>
> Is that good enough for you?  Hmmm?
>
>  *>>  *>>
>  *>>  *>> I'm game.  What's the position AND momentum of a single electron
>  *>about a
>  *>>  *>hydrogen
>  *>>  *>> atom of your choice?  (Yeah, yeah... Heisenberg again..)
>  *>>  *>>
>  *>>
>  *>> Ignoring this too?
>
>  *>I don't know much about this subject. I do know a little about Schrodinger's
>  *>cat...
>
> Ah... I have a warm spot in my heart for Schroedinger's cat.  Distant relative.
> ;)
>
>  *>Perhaps this whole QM thing is malarkey?
>
> Perhaps.  That's science.  But so far it fits all the current data and tests have
> confirmed it to a lotta decimal places.
>
>  *>Einstein rejected it!
>
> He didn't like it, but then, his Nobel Prize for the photoelectric effect pretty
> much helped to confirmed it.  ;)
>
>  *>That's is the essential shortcoming with all knowledge that is derived
>  *>empirically...
>

Inductive reasoning is inherently error prone, thus unreliable.
All of science is fundamentally based on inductive inference.
I ONLY completely trust deductive inference and pure
(as opposed to linguistic) semantics.

>
> Since Kant said that all knowledge (including a priori) is based on empirical
> knowledge, your transcendental knowledge is in the same boat.  Shame, that... ;)

NO, this in NOT what he meant. Even if he did mean
this he would have been incorrect. Ultimately knowledge
actually begins with analysis. I have specifically derived
the first seven steps in the creation of this most fundamental
prerequisite knowledge, beginning with absolutely nothing.
Not as much as even the concept of nothingness itself
is required for this most fundamental dialectical derivation.
In much simpler terms, I have figured out how to get
something from absolute nothingness...

>
>
>  *>There can not possibly exist any distinguishing difference between reality
>  *>and a perfect illusion...
>
> You are unable to prove this unless you demonstrate a "perfect illusion".  ;)
>

It needs not be demonstrated, merely conceived.
there are many philosophical thought experiments
that make this more clear. The brain in a bottle
connected to a computer is one of them. 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?

>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>I can't get past this myself so I ignore it.
>  *>>
>  *>> Hmmm.. You do that a lot, don't you?  That saves you the trouble of
>  *>noticing that
>  *>> it's invalidated one of your assertions in any case.  ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>I comprehend the reasoning behind "Love your enemies"
>
> Perhaps, but it's difficult if not impossible to do so.  And in many cases, not
> the smart thing to do.
>

Like water extinguishes fire, love extinguishes enmity.

>
>  *>Comprehension is the ONLY sound way to attain truth...
>
> I agree with those words as typed, but after reading your assertions of having
> "omniscience", your arguments that taking stuff that doesn't belong to you isn't
> theft, Godel's wrong, etc...  I don't think you actually practice Comprehension.
>

Most everyone is omniscient about the addition of positive integers.
Limited subject domain omniscience. The broadest field that I
have ever applied this to is the derivation of a computer
language compiler that produces mathematically optimal translations.
Given an infinite amount of time, no one could ever produce
a compiler that would be the slightest trace better than the
translations that my compiler produced.

>
>  *>My theory is that Satan wrote the above mentioned reference...
>
> Sure.  And you've exhausted ALL the possibilies before coming to that conclusion?
> Heh.
>

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).

>
>  *>>
>  *>> Exodus 20:15 "You shall not steal."?
>  *>>
>  *>> Or:
>  *>>
>  *>> Exodus 20:17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not
>  *>covet your
>  *>> neighbor's wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or
>  *>>  his ass, or anything that is your neighbor's."
>  *>>
>  *>> I think software would fall under the "anything" portion of that... ;)
>  *>>
>
>  *>Current software that has commercial viability YES.
>
>  *>Antique software that has no use except the novelty of its antiquity, that
>  *>has been utterly abandoned by its owners, NO...
>
> That software has exactly the same _use_ as it did when it was new, Cooter..
>
> WP programs, Spreadsheets... Games.  They play exactly the same as they did
> (unless a bit got flipped in which case it's broken) when they were purchased
> new.
>
> And the burden of proof that they have been "utterly abandoned by its owners"
> would have to fall on the shoulders of those distributing the warez.  The only
> truely abandoned software is that which has been released by those same authors.
>
>  *>The owner can always (under current copyright law) resurface and assert
>  *>their ownership rights, ** the fact that they don't combined with the fact
>  *>that there is no demand for their product (except as antique novelty) is
>  *>sufficient evidence that using it is not theft.
>
> Sigh.  Read the Copyright Law again, Cooter.  Particularly Chapter 3 - Duration
> of Copyright.  While your at it, read Chapter 5- Copyright Infringement and
> Remedies.
>
> They make a lie of your statement that "it is not theft."
>
> Get over it, hmmm?
>
>  *>** Works for hire is limited to 75 years
>
> OK...
>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Ah, or at least attributed to him. I always consider every possibility
>  *>until
>  *>>  *>they have been utterly disproven.
>  *>>
>  *>> I truly doubt that, Cooter..  Even in simple situations, the possibilities
>  *>> increase exponentually.  One, if you considered EVERY possibility, you
>  *>would have
>  *>> little time to function.  Two, there are possibilities that are impossible
>  *>to
>  *>> prove or disprove (like my Pink Unicorn earlier).
>
>  *>That is why these possibilities must be considered CATEGORICALLY...
>
> So, EVERY doesn't really mean EVERY, then...  How convenient for you.  You can
> change the meaning of words to mean whatever you want them too.  ;)
>
>  *>Boiling them down to the smallest set of relevant cateogories makes this
>  *>feasible.
>
> Let me guess.  Smallest doesn't mean smallest, right?  Because each and every
> possibility can be in a category by itself, and then you're stuck with my point
> all over again.
>

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.

>
> Which was: "Even in simple situations, the possibilities increase exponentually.
> One, if you considered EVERY possibility, you would have little time to
> function."  So you've yet to refute this.
>
>  *> *>>
>  *>>
>  *>>  *>Taking something that the owners have abandoned is not stealing.
>  *>>
>  *>> Ah.  I answered this in another post.  The Copyright laws say nothing
>  *>about
>  *>> abandonment and everything about the protection of intellectual property,
>  *>making
>  *>> your point in error.
>  *>>
>
>  *>As I have stated many times, I am not referring to the letter-of-the-law, I
>  *>am referring to the spirit-of-the-law.
>
> The spirit-of-the-law was the recognition that the creators of intellectual
> property need protection to prosper.  This "spirit" is not a monolith, but a
> general agreement (of course thieves like you and Dorktor Tom and RoseyWanker
> differ in opinion..) and a consensus reached by our Government to codify this
> "spirit" in todays Copyright Law.
>
> You've got things Ass-Backwards...  It's not the "Letter-of-the-law" that needs
> correction by your arbitrary "Spirit"...  It's your "Spirit" which must conform
> to the "Letter".  Hurts, doesn't it.  ;)
>

Yet another moral dogmatist...
(a) There is a rule.
(b) This rule has been broken,
(c) Thus a wrong has been committed
(without regard to harmful effect).

>
>  *>Taking something that has no value is not stealing (even legally) taking
>  *>something that has been abandoned is not stealing, either (even legally).
>
> In answer to this loony assertion... http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
>
>  *>In this case we very probably have at least one of these two conditions.
>
> In answer to this loony assertion... http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
>
>  *>If no unused copies have been sold by the original owners, or anyone that
>  *>they may have assigned the rights to in a few years, and the reason for this
>  *>is that this software has been made utterly obsolete by hundred-fold
>  *>improvements in the level of functionality, that in this case there is no
>  *>harm does to the original owners (or their assigns) by freely distributing
>  *>these copies.
>
> In answer to this loony assertion... http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
>
> And I'll add the old "slippery slope" argument.  When pirates become the ones who
> arbitrarily decide the "obsolesence" of other peoples property, you will have
> chaos.  And theft.  Lots of theft.
>
>  *>Let's take the case of an Apple Dos 3.3 word processing program that has not
>  *>been distributed commercially for at least ten years...
>
> Applewriter for instance?  Released by the author.
>
>  *>I dare you to use reasoning on this one.
>
> I'd be happy to show you how it's done.  ;)
>
>  *>In the specific case cited, try to find a sound counter-example where the
>  *>owners (defined as the original developers, or their anyone that they may
>  *>have directly assigned their rights to) would be harmed by freely
>  *>distributing this software.
>
> First.  Do you even acknowledge that according to the laws of the USA and most of
> the other countries in the world, that they have any say in what happens to their
> work?
>

Of course, yet, even they don't have the moral right to merely
allow their work to be wasted.

>
> Do they morally have any control over what happens to their work?
>

Only to the extent of monetary remuneration.
They have the right to profit from their work
as long as it remains profitable, or the copyright
expires, which ever comes first. They do not
have the right to make sure that their work is
wasted.

>
> 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)

>
> http://lcweb.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
>
>  *>What specifically harmful effect could this action directly cause???
>
> And do you consider it harmless to deprive someone of the protections that these
> same governments have conferred on these same creators?
>

If the only thing that they are going to do with these
"protections" is make sure that their work is wasted, then
YES. The government is not the Lord and ruler of
Righteousness, its made up entirely of  a bunch of
fallible men, and the written work of a bunch of fallible men.

>
> Would you object to being deprived of your rights by the arbitrary decisions of
> looters and thieves?  Careful how you answer.  It would end up being one really
> NASTY world.  History is full of nations where this was the norm.
>

I would not object to someone "pirating" my software creation
IFF these would only otherwise be wasted. I am a professional
software developer myself.

>
> As Paul used in his examples...  Living there is truely "Hell on Earth", and much
> more convincing than your mythical Hell.
>
> Vogons For a Turlette Free Apple II Community!
>
> Quantum_Cat