A new form of philosophy I came up with

[ALine]

On 12/31/2024 at 2:54 PM, geordief said:

Do you want to  give an example  of 2 identical patterns that can be designated  as one object (if that is what you were saying?)

Do they  have to be patterns of the same objects? (Like  identical waves perhaps?)

Yeah sure, patterns would be considered objects so that each pattern would be a separate indistinguishable pattern. I wouldn't say waves, per se. 

[Genady]

41 minutes ago, naitche said:

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

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.

[naitche]

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

Edited Thursday at 01:52 AM by naitche

[Genady]

47 minutes ago, naitche said:

As being 1

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?

[geordief]

2 hours ago, ALine said:

Yeah sure, patterns would be considered objects so that each pattern would be a separate indistinguishable pattern. I wouldn't say waves, per se. 

Are the patterns  x , x^2,x^3 all identical or all distinct?

Is the pattern in 1,1,1 the same as the pattern in 2,4,8 and 3 ,9, 27?

Would you describe them as "patterns"(or a "pattern") ?

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

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

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.

10 hours ago, naitche said:

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.

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

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

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

You seem to have strayed from the topic at hand:

How does any of this, constitute or facilitate a new way of thinking?

[naitche]

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.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, naitche said:

they are the foundations of Mathematics

What does make you think so?

 

1 minute ago, naitche said:

With out that binary there is no foundation for Mathematics.

Can you prove this statement?

 

2 minutes ago, naitche said:

In Language they are represented by their Objective and subjective aspects

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

4 minutes ago, naitche said:

There is no 2 or 5.

Can you prove this?

[naitche]

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.

[TheVat]

As a brain (in a vat, of course) with both digital and analog aspects, I can make little sense of this theory.  

[naitche]

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.

Edited Friday at 02:22 AM by naitche

[Genady]

I have asked you, why do you think that 0 and 1

2 hours ago, Genady said:

are the foundations of Mathematics

and can you prove that without 0 and 1

2 hours ago, Genady said:

there is no foundation for Mathematics.

Your answer is

 

8 minutes ago, naitche said:

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

9 minutes ago, naitche said:

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.

None of these statements answers my questions. You just repeat your claims without proof or justification. I read it that you do not have a proof or a justification. "It is so because it is not otherwise!"

Your position is not supported.

OTOH, I know that foundation of mathematics does not require 0 and 1, together or separately, and also that 0 and 1 are far from being sufficient to provide foundation of mathematics.

0 was a great invention, but mathematics existed and did well for a couple of thousands of years without it.

And what about imaginary number "i"? Why it is not in the foundation of mathematics? Or irrational numbers? 

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

Your theory is very narrow and superficial.

[dimreepr]

12 hours ago, naitche said:

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.

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. 

[Phi for All]

14 hours ago, naitche said:

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

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.

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.

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. 

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.

[TheVat]

14 hours ago, naitche said:

There is no logic other wise. Its built on that premise. There is no existence/reality to measure with out 1.

What about fractal (non-integer) dimensions?

[dedo]

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.

[naitche]

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.

[TheVat]

8 hours ago, TheVat said:

What about fractal (non-integer) dimensions?

Were you unable to answer this question?  

@naitche

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

 

[naitche]

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

 

 

[dimreepr]

11 hours ago, naitche said:

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

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

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

[naitche]

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.

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, naitche said:

23 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.

23 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.

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

Banging my head against a brick wall, is very far away from a new form of philosophy, unless I actually want to see a pink (other colour's are available 😉) unicorn... 🙄

Which I don't, again... 😣

[naitche]

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.

Edited 14 hours ago by naitche

[Genady]

15 minutes ago, naitche said:

I propose these are expressed mathematically as 0/1

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.

[naitche]

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.

Edited 14 hours ago by naitche