naitche

On 2/20/2025 at 10:54 PM, Genady said:

I see the problem now. I was talking about mathematics while you are talking about accounting.

Yes. How else to account for the existences of language, science and mathematics itself.

On 2/21/2025 at 10:10 AM, naitche said:

On 2/21/2025 at 12:51 PM, Genady said:

As I said above, what you think is mathematics in fact is accounting.

 

The most basic of laws....apply to both.

Work for the duality of the Objective and subjective, and can be seen to work in biology and social sciences, evolution and much more, very literally when you overcome a cognitive dissonance that says the Objective decides the values expressed.

A double negative, where the value is given the Objective, can only be expressed in negative value or subtraction of the Objective to 0.

Its been said there will be no 'new' discoveries on this site. I tend to agree, since the membership is more concerned with discrediting or debunking rather than looking.

Accumulating personal credits through arguments given, or the discrediting of them, even when that can't be done. What you can't see, cant be. So much for an objective science forum.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Dream on.

Is neither an argument or refutation.

11 hours ago, Genady said:

I see the problem now. I was talking about mathematics while you are talking about accounting.

I have been talking about the most basic laws of which the 'reality' of mathematics is built upon.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, definition's do seem to be an ongoing problem.

What you don't seem to understand is, the expectation is real (objective), it's only the words 'dark matter' that's subjective; an arbitrary title for something we know but don't fully understand; not unlike your contributions thus far.

I didn't say the expectation is not real . Your Objective is not 'realized', is it? It is still the objective. The purpose served. Its subjective only in relation to... or relevance to...

On 2/12/2025 at 11:16 AM, Genady said:

Do I understand correctly that groups and vector spaces are Objectives, while rings and fields are Subjectives?

By definition, and manifestation, or in a defined /specified totatality each is, or can be viewed, in the Objective. 

By definition, the words field or structure are objective. The mean(ing) is defined. Limited. It has margines to what can be included. The Objective is a subtraction of existence to a defined 'state' of being. Its marginalized to that state.

 The content/constituent, property, structure or systems that provide or enable that defined state are subjective.

4+5-1                   =8

     ^                        ^

Subject.     The objective/mean(ing) total. Defined.

You don't have  the objective with out a value/contribution to it.

You may be able to conceptualize the objective. Like dark matter. It has little mean(ing) unless you find the values that contribute to its actuality or mean. The definition atm is just the word for nothing where there is an expectation something should contribute.

In definition, the total has no value of its own. Thats given or brought through its subject properties. 

It only has value of its own when becomes subjective. When 8 +2 =10, serving another defined objective.

Each part of the total sum is equal in the definition/total, as an equal contribution to the whole.

But not equal to the sum, unless its the sole contributing value. Like an electron. 8=8

5 does not equal 8, or have greater value to the total than 4. But the total can be achieved just as easily by 3+5

On 2/12/2025 at 6:12 PM, Genady said:

Another question in addition to the one above:

The group is a structure of a set. OTOH, you said earlier that Objective has no structure. Isn't it a contradiction?

Could you please point out where I said that? It would be incorrect. It has structure, or property, which is subjective. The 'system'. The objective doesn't define its system or subjective. The subjective or structure property defines the objective.  Its 'Environment'.

This may be my last post. The binary may be better expressed by 0/+. ? Crazy to me, So doubt I can convince anyone else. Just the same, it works. Language expressed with proper reference to the aspects of the Objective and subjective exposes negative bias to the mean expressions of existence.

On 2/7/2025 at 1:35 PM, Genady said:

 

How about group theory? Groups have only one identity element, which can be 0 or 1 (or something else), but not two of them.

 

The group is the Objective in this scenario. So that fits.

On 2/8/2025 at 4:54 AM, dedo said:

A practical example that may apply about how both the "object" and the "interaction" matter could be organizational science ..

 

It is a study of organizational/constitutional science that led me to this conclusion. It appears to work most obviously and  literally in that realm.

On 2/10/2025 at 11:18 PM, dimreepr said:

Questions are really easy to recognise, they have have one of these ? at the end.

You're more than welcome to say my question's are meaningless, with an appropriate explanation of the reason.

But just deciding not to answer, for whatever reason, is not a recognised method of a meaningful discussion, it's kinda rule one in the philosophical lexicon, it's certainly nothing new (consider this my last attempt to steer you towards the actual topic). 🙄🙏🤞😣 

If you can not understand how this relates to the O.P and systems, I assume you are again skimming over information without taking what has been given.

Though I admit I am very far from a Mathematician, So perhaps 'R' or 'V' ( relation or value ) would better replace 1 ?

30 minutes ago, Genady said:

I don't have any issue with this.

What I've objected to was when you changed the emphasis and claimed that 0/1 is the foundation of mathematics. This is incorrect from the mathematical perspective.

Using a mathematical notation for your application is fine.

I hope the addition to my post above covers this.

Recognition and application of those 2 aspects gives mathematics its structure/foundation.

On 2/6/2025 at 12:44 PM, Genady said:

I doubt there is "the whole". I rather think that everything is a piece or aspect of something and also has its pieces or aspects.

On 2/8/2025 at 3:59 AM, TheVat said:

What about fractal (non-integer) dimensions?

So the fractal expression of 0/1 seems apt.

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This is a discussion, traditionally a question (from me) is a prompt for further explanaition (from you), a tradition you resolutely refuse to follow.

 

I have answered your questions, where they have been direct enough to recognize as such.

Bias is exposed when when more than one definition is applied to the Objective. Implication of value or relationship where  only the negative is expressed gives a double negative. Value expressed negatively as a subtraction.

Traditionally, when the same question comes from multiple sources, answering it once suffices for all participants.

That there are Objective and Subjective realities is I believe is generally accepted.

I propose these are expressed mathematically as 0/1

The values given to existence, or reality.

The purpose of language is to express, and inform our realities. And the language I have used exists as 'real' in all iterations I have used.  Language is both simplified and given more depth in their 0/1 , negative/positive, Objective/subjective. Its definition is improved.

I can only assume your own comprehension is at fault, since you haven't shown how or where the above  creates any conflict with reality.

1. Value must be given,  or only 0,  Nothing, is manifest.

There is no structure to provide a meaning, or sum totality.

0, Nothing exists. + there is 1, existence.

0/1 is the structure of existence, expressed in language with the Objective and subjective.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If I understood what? You haven't explianed anything, so far.

False. You don't understand. Thats fine, but we get further if you can point out the problems. As below.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And how does two word's, that you seem unable to comprehend properly, expose bias in any meaningful way? 

You seem very sure the comprehension problem is mine. You have not given reason why that must so. Why the definitions I have provided would conflict with reality.

17 hours ago, naitche said:

I will study the link you provided to understand fractal dimensions better before I make any statement, but the contributing values, and their own properties,  are going to affect the total. Thats the point.  Hence improving out comes in organizations not only through qualification of 'the Object', but also by enhanced and better informed interactions. Same Objective organization, its manifestation is altered.

 

O.K. Strictly speaking, Qualification of the Object is not a thing. It either is, or it isn't.  Its definition is exclusive of anything else, or less than,  Qualifications would be a value to the Objective, and exposing a negative bias. Requiring discreditation of its constituency. Qualification of the constituency is the thing. Definition is achieved through qualification of the contributing constituent value(s)- so if contributing values can be better qualified for the objective, Improved  definition can be achieved.

You are a Doctor, or you aren't, based on qualifications. What being a Doctor means, and how we define that, depends on whether or not your qualifications fit our definition, or how well. The constituent response-ability to The objective.

What we term a Doctor is is not static, and its definition can be continually improved and expanded on as long we can accept new data demonstrated to add value to the purpose or objectives of a Doctor. The Meaning of a Doctor is expanded, while its definitions are not qualified. There is room for evolution of the mean.

So Fractal Dimensions are not a falsification.

I will study the link you provided to understand fractal dimensions better before I make any statement, but the contributing values, and their own properties,  are going to affect the total. Thats the point.  Hence improving out comes in organizations not only through qualification of 'the Object', but also by enhanced and better informed interactions. Same Objective organization, its manifestation is altered.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

Were you unable to answer this question?  

@naitche

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_dimension

 

12 hours ago, dimreepr said:

OK, so you think that tapping into this AI epoch means that we can understand the reality of being a human better than actually being a human???

That's what the machines want you to think... 🙄

Philosophy is designed to strip away bias, not to find an algorithm that reinforces them. 

If you understood, you would find proper use of the objective and Subjective serves more to expose bias.

ie back to the computer, It is real, but is not equal to reality. It is equal in reality, as a subtraction.

Its not reality to accept that a computer is it, that one could be a substitution for reality. To accept that one would have to discredit the reality of anything else. Subtract the whole to that state. As I am Human, but I am not Humanity itself. That believe would require that I discredit the humanity of the rest of you.

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Can you SHOW any of this, rather than just repeat the assertions? And I think you're misusing "objective" in several instances where you combine "objective" the adjective with "objective" the noun and try to justify it. Then you really screw it up by using "object" as a verb. 

It is negative. To negate. The root remains. The context varies. The word objective does exist in all those contextual variations, because language is our means of expressing and informing reality.

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How can a binary treatment be "foundational" to mathematics when we had robust maths long before we started using binary languages for computers? Please don't just claim it's this way, persuade us, show us why you believe this, using evidence we can all agree with.

We had binary treatment too, before computers. To add or subtract. Positive or negative.Value or its absence. We had to have the Objective, and the relationship/values to support its meaning.

As to the relevance of 0/1 to express this binary, I think  0 should be obvious. Yet even the negative, zero, or nothing, is something when recognized as such. +1, for recognition, or relativity. With out which there is no value or means to provide any sum total.There is no evidence for any thing to exist with out its value 1st provided.

0, +1 for affect/effect which must be relativistic. I believe logic supports this, and the evidence is every where if you look.

6 hours ago, dedo said:

A practical example that may apply about how both the "object" and the "interaction" matter could be organizational science from the safety literature.  Many organizations only focus on qualifications of "the object" and they vet people as best they can, but give little regard to the "interaction".

However, the safety literature has shown that improving the "interaction" is vital to reduce error and to make the "interaction" work, both training and infrastructure of the interaction is helpful.  High hazard systems like commercial aviation developed specific infrastructure and training to improve the "interaction" as a response to near misses and plane crashes especially an event that occurred in the late 1970's where a veteran captain flew his airliner into the ground when a flight engineer on the plane who knew how to save the plane could not speak up enough even to save his own life.

Then the airlines trained crew to speak up and officers to listen with training called "CRM" or "Crew Resource Management".  The airlines also have multiple reporting systems to enable "interaction".  Personally not a pilot, but I asked the question on an airline forum which of the feedback loops in commercial aviation was the most important & the pilot responded "CRM".  

So your philosophy has merit in that it can encourage focus on both the object, and the interaction, as important in producing favorable outcomes.

Also supported in marketing psychology, where  its been shown that the Objective is best achieved when the value is demonstrated.  Evidenced.  Ditto for organisms or organizations relationship with environment and selection processes within various media.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

What does make you think so?

Positive and Negative. Values given, or subtracted to achieve the objective summation of totality or mean(ing)

2 hours ago, Genady said:

 

Can you prove this statement?

There is no logic other wise. Its built on that premise. There is no existence/reality to measure with out 1. There is no foundation to support 2 or 5 with out the value of 1. There is only Nothing to express with with out its value 1st given.

There is no evidence for those values with out 1 given.

2 hours ago, Genady said:

 

How do 0 and 1 in mathematics relate to Objective and Subjective aspects in language??

Can you prove this?

Positive and negative for value.

1, value is relative/subjective.

0,The Objective is neutral. If I find value,  in an Objective, thats relative/subjective to me.

To be Objective, you must put aside your subjective values, discard personal relationship or perspective.

To achieve an Objective, you must 1st provide the values or properties that will serve its purpose.

Subjectively support or provide the foundations of property needed .

If I join a canine pedigree association, I become a property of that that Objective. I am  contributing subjectively to its current manifestation, but am bound by the limits of its definition. I could still breed a cross bred dog, but that contribution would not be included by definition. One has no relationship to the other, by definition.

If the Pedigree association tries to merge those definitions,(as they have done) neither can be supported. They are each Objective to the other. In conflict. They can only achieve a totality by negative value expression. Subtraction.

One has nothing to do with the other. Each stands on their own merit or lack of, as far as  expression, or their current sum totality of their  Objective is concerned. 

Relativity given that Pedigree Objective in its definition is not sustainable. Objectivity has been lost. The Objective or purpose is not sustainable. It can't be defined. Its a double negative. 0.0.

Its Value can only be lost, or expressed in the negative while that language is accepted in the Objective given. Equal and opposites in perpetual opposition until only 0 exists.

Value has been incorrectly placed to the objective.  It will Object to value it can not define or recognize. As it does.

11 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If we both agree that said product is worth said price, then value is an objective truth between us;supermarket's upsize this phenomena, especially when they discount the product because of the sell by date; and thus it caters to every layer of imagined wealth over value.

It IS ALL BINARY! Value exists objectively, As a definition of reality. Defined without relationship. Its expression though, is always subjective. Relative. By definition though, Value is relative to Nothing. Its application must always be relative.

Definition 0.  Expression 1. Expression is the collective of values given.

20 hours ago, Genady said:

What is a significance of this nomenclature, 0 and 1? Could they be identified instead as, say, 2 and 5, or U and D, or L and R, etc.? Why do you need them at all?

Because they are the foundations of Mathematics. With out that binary there is no foundation for Mathematics. There is no 2 or 5.

In Language they are represented by their Objective and subjective aspects.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, a computer is an object which, unless subject to some sort of linguistically twisted reasoning, should be a clue.

Its BINARY. It is objectively a computer. It clearly exists in all its definition. Its not The Objective under discussion. Its not the same thing as reality. Its a property or component that could not exist without ONE. 1.  Reality. Its a value that contributes to the meaning or sum total.

The computer is relative in this aspect. Subjective to reality/existence.

13 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is seems like utter bollox.

This for instance,"is Recognition, of a value given. It can't be either positive or  negative.It can't exist.", I've already explained how fair exchange for both parties (work's). the subjective bit, and the value is the objective bit, agreed by both parties.

Value is always subjective, so how do you square that?

No. The objective is the purpose served by the exchange.

7 minutes ago, Genady said:

I doubt there is "the whole". I rather think that everything is a piece or aspect of something and also has its pieces or aspects.

Sure. Our reality is only what we can recognize as such. As being 1

14 hours ago, Genady said:

I think it is.

Its 'real'. But its only a piece, or property  of the whole in that context or aspect.

On 2/3/2025 at 12:24 AM, dimreepr said:

Ok, so how does a computer replicate that?

On 2/3/2025 at 12:28 AM, dimreepr said:

 

On 2/3/2025 at 12:27 AM, Genady said:

It does not. Computer works with pseudo-random. Which is non-random.

Because a computer is not reality. Its a subjective part of it.. It  Its a tool fed its parameters of purpose - what its Register, or 'recognition' of value is to be to be. Its meaning, total value, and the abilities we build into it to find its meaning. The Objective mean sum total. based on 0/1, and the meaning we can find in each, relevant or in relationship to the to the purpose or objective given it, and how we have applied those in our favor, rather than to our detriment. Recognition- of what aspects or values are  inherent to our objective, or purpose. Which also requires recognition.

Objective or Subjective. Which aspect is relevant to its purpose, and which is at play in any expression it can provide in its being, or existence, on the values given.

0. The Objective, is always a subtraction of the reality expressed in 'recognition" of its meaning.

1. is Recognition, of a value given. It can't be either positive or  negative.It can't exist. There could be neither. Without being relative to Some thing.  Theres no  evidence for it relative to 'Nothing'.

We give the computer the values inherent to its task, purpose or Objective in defining or setting their limits. The meaning or being, and what we have provided to get there. The structure of existence we build.  Based on how well we recognize and make use of the aspects of existence we are given to work with is understood through its language.

O/1.

Objective or subjective .

Neither is of any value or consequence, Has no meaning or sum total,  without strict recognition of what its relevance is.

On 2/3/2025 at 12:28 AM, dimreepr said:

 

Because you don't understand. Speed bump.

Binary is the basis.   Positive/Negative. 0/1.

Value given provides the Objective its totality or Summation.

The Objective is always negative, Any value is subjective. Value applied to the Objective can can only be expressed in the negative/is subtractive. Implicit in language biology and evolution, biological or otherwise.

Its relevant because its a simplification of the idea proposed. There are mechanics implicit to existence demonstrated by our use of mathematics to explain it, and the language that recognizes the duality of The objective and subjective to it.

The Objective is final. A defined totality with out further transaction.  Subtracted to a state of definition.

Value is transaction dependent. Contributing to states of definition that will depend on the Objectives served by transactions given.

The only Objective achievable when values contributing to it are not recognized equally is nil.

The Objective is Nothing, if value given is not recognized. Nothing to find with out being evidenced.

There are physical laws contained in the language of The objective and Subjective, expressed in Mathematics,  evidenced in biological/social processes and governing all of evolution.

Little  comprehension, or perhaps a cognitive dissonance,  without recognition of their correct use and application in language.

On 12/16/2024 at 10:56 AM, ALine said:

 

I do not know anything in philosophy dealing with "negative" values. And I think events and actions and interactions can be empirical as well.

You could also think of the Objective as being a value  of reality, subtracted to its definition. When viewed in the Objective, its negative of Value. Any value it holds can only be in relationship ie contribution to...

Look up Aircrete

Still taken care of much more simply with the Objective and subjective. Your system is The Objective. Its components are the values that contribute to its being. Its content.

A Sum, and the basis of mathematics. Same physics in operation. The formula works as its a model of reality/existence.

There is nil totality without the values that contribute to its being.