Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Firefox 127 With 32-bit x86 Linux Pretending To Be "x86_64" To Reduce Fingerprinting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    Thales accessed the Babylonian texts not the Aryan or nordic Germanic pagan. The earliest Natural philosophy is babylon that can be found. So from babylon to Aryan to nordic Germanic pagan with bits being lost along the way. Then you have from Babylon to Thales of Miletus to modern day science.


    i say you do not know the true origin and also not the true date of this finding. who copied from who and also who was first. there is a possibility that there is a much older source who did find or invented it and this source is lost maybe it was only transferred verbally without text writings. if you say babylon where the first text finding even if this is true does not matter at all because well text is in 99,99999% of all cases not the root the root is thoughts first and then verbally second and then much later it maybe end up as text.
    but well it shows you do not know history research very well because text based research is well limited people only do it because many time you have no other sources and verbal communication and origins many times can not be proofed. but there are cases who it can be proofen for example it end up in text of a philosopher and he clearly write that he did get to know it from verbal source and not from text source.

    one of the biggest such examples is a german/roman example the Hermann/Varus Battle of the Teutoburg Forest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...utoburg_Forest

    one traditional source of this battle is the book Germania from the Philosopher and historian Tacitus
    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germania_(Tacitus)
    but problem is Tacitus was never part of the event he was no witness also see date the battle was 9 AD and Tacitus lifed from 58 to †120 means he did not even exist as a human when the battle happened.
    but one thing we can say and proof that his version of history can be proofed by excavations​d other historical sources. i just give you this example that verbal communication exist Tacitus only did write down what he did get from verbal communication. and this is the writing text you can research in history.

    now back to your babylon vs Aryan/nordic Germanic pagan claim your text based research and the date of this text does not proof the origin as the Hermann/Varus Battle Germania (Tacitus) example shows.
    all you can do is to give a educated guess.

    also you did misunderstand me i did not say origin i said link. there is a link between babylon and Aryan if you want to admit it or not. and there is a link between Aryan and Nordic Germanic pagan. if you admit it or not.
    also your version of history does not fit to the historical facts because the Nordic Germanic pagan did not have tradition of writing/text instead they had tradition of verbal transfer of knowlege and wisdom.
    also Aryan had this tradition of verbal transfer of knowledge and wisdom.

    i say this to you we in 2024 only talk about Babylonian and also Roman Empire in this topic because of "Text/writing" unlike the nordic germanic pagans and the Aryans the Babylonians and also Roman Empire had tradition of text. without Babylonian/Roman text/writing we would nearly know zero about Nordic Germanic pagan and the Aryans.
    Last edited by qarium; 20 June 2024, 08:17 PM.
    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

    Comment


    • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

      Natural philosophy and modern science that based from it no belief should be held without reflection or argument. A law only exists where a good argument/reflection cannot be done with natural philosophy/modern science yet due to lack of information.
      qarium common sense has no valid place in science or natural philosophy.
      Aristotle was taught by Thales of Miletus because he had to because it fits for mathematics. Yes this is one of the places where mathematics and modern science split.
      Aristotle and work assigned to Aristotle are not part of Natural philosophy or modern science when you did into it.
      Something you have in Babylon natural philosophy is the story is the case of the failed cart wheel with 10 different people seeing the event with 10 different explain for what the failure was. At the end of the story you are asked to say what answer was failure and what person was right. There is one problem. No one person was right and not one person was 100 percent wrong. Yes I have cut this story really short. This is that human observation is flawed story backed up with question to prove own observations is flawed most people will think 1 of 10 answers in the story is right because it best matches their experiences. This also means common sense cannot exist.
      I strongly disagree here. because in the last 50+ years we had multible court cases with similar situation and many of them where solved by logic and common sense and mathematics and computer science in a way that was not possible at the time of Babylon natural philosophers did write down this story.
      because they did not have access to super computers who run ultra precise simulations and calculate not only 1 variante instead they simulated nearly all possible variants. and in many times you could proof that 1 story of these 1 stories is the correct one means the universal objective truth and the court ruled because of this.
      in many times the super computer similation could even proof that all 10 stories where wrong but because it similated many more possobilities with all known factors of all of the 10 stories so that the super computer similation could even reconstruct a 11. version who can be proofen to be the objective truth. plain and simple because you can proof by computer simulation that only this version is possible according to physical laws.
      this computer similation based court rulings alone proof that your argument "common sense cannot exist"is bullshit because the courts claimed they ruled according to logic and mathematic and common sense because the computer similation did proof that no other possibility was even possible.
      i could now show you people who where 15 years in prison for murder who then walked free and did even get a lot of money from the government in compensation because a computer simulation did proof that he did nor murder this person that it was physically impossible that he did this murder. by simple proofing it was a accident​ and only this accident​ is physically possible accoring to the computer simulation.
      all these computer similations are based on logic axioms and also mathematic axioms and also common sense axioms.
      Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

      Comment


      • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        Because every human has unique observation


        your Babylon teaching is nothing but Abrahamic religion's relativism​ teaching
        just see this picture as a example before college/university and after college/university this Woke ADL's babylon relativism teaching end like this:

        or another example:

        with Babylonian Abrahamic religion's relativism you end like this
        first you had a Aristotle mindset a Women is a Women... then in university they brainwash you to believe that a women is no longer a women!!!
        because a women is no longer a women you can be everything!!!
        the result is Satanism because Abrahamic religion's relativism​ teaching is in fact Satanism.
        first she was a nice women but then she turned into a monster.
        she turned in a monster because she clearly lost all common sense axioms and all logic axioms and of course all mathematical axioms​.

        Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
        Because every human has unique observation so their interpolation of what is classed as common knowledge will be different. This is the Babylon source of why repeat experiments many times and have different people repeat the experiments is required before you can be have any probability of being sure of anything. Also never being 100 percent sure of anything is also part of Babylon natural philosophy.
        qarium this is the hard bid you anything based on Babylon natural philosophy the reality is common sense does not exist they class common sense as impossible to exist you are ignoring nature claiming common sense exists.
        Qarium you have cross schools of teaching. Aristotle school of thought does not mix with Babylon natural philosophy at all.


        well lets assume this Babylonian teaching of relativism was correct 4000 years ago it is clearly outdated in 2024.
        and the reason why it is outdated it is super computers and AI and computer similations who are all based on logic axioms and mathematic axioms and also common sense axioms and these computer similations no longer suffer from this human individuallity problem you write here: "every human has unique observation"
        decentralized computer science networks like Bitcoin and blockchain and AI and supercomputer computer simulations clearly do not have this problem.

        "his is the Babylon source of why repeat experiments many times and have different people repeat the experiments is required before you can be have any probability of being sure of anything."

        well your knowelege is 4000 years outdated because in 2024 no serious person does this like this anymore.
        they all work with computer simulation and even AI driven computer simulations who clearly do not suffer from this problem. many times the first result of such a computer simulation is the correct objective truth.
        of course you can run the similation a second time just to be sure but well the result will be the same.
        and there is no reason why the resuls should not be the same. this cleanly shows that your mind construct about science is clearly outdated only because it was true 4000 years ago does not mean we work like this in science in 2024...

        "lso never being 100 percent sure"

        we have 100% proof breakthroughs​ with AI based Computer Simulations every year.
        and no i do not mean 99.999% i really mean 100% proof.

        "qarium this is the hard bid you anything based on Babylon natural philosophy the reality is common sense does not exist they class common sense as impossible to exist you are ignoring nature claiming common sense exists."

        well all your babbling is nonsense here because AI based Computer Simulations proofed multible times that common sense axioms and logic axioms and mathematical axioms are correct.

        your knowlege about science is 4000 years outdated it comes from a time AI based Computer Simulations did not exist.

        "Qarium you have cross schools of teaching. Aristotle school of thought does not mix with Babylon natural philosophy at all."

        you are right Aristotle is far away from your 4000 year outdated Babylon Natural philosophy
        but Aristotle clearly has something to do with Computer Simulations who run on decentralised networks or centralised and use common sense axioms and mathematical axioms and logic axioms to generate AI driven Computer Similation based science research results.

        and every single natural law you can ever find and was ever discovered and was ever quantified​ is coded in these computer simulations. thats why the results many times have 100% correctness in the first run.

        ok now you claim its not 100% and it is all relative but you have to admit that all technological breakthroughs​ in the last 50 years are clearly computer similation based. universities even 40 years ago used commodore 64 to perform computer simulations with absolute correct results.

        Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

        Comment


        • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
          There is a problem here you don't know Thales of Miletus or modern day science that well.
          There is a difference between mathematics and science. Aristrole Metaphysics common sense axions line up to mathematics axions.
          Natural philosophy does not use common sense axioms [...]
          Because every human has unique observation so their interpolation of what is classed as common knowledge will be different.


          my opinion is that Babylonian Abrahamic​ relativism is plain and simple Satanism.
          in this youtube video above you can see a afro who talks about this satanism that is teach this Abrahamic​ relativism what is nothing but Satanism.

          the afro person in this video say it in a religious way.
          and more or less it is the same what i said but i did say it in a non-religious way.
          i dislike this religious teachings so because of this i say the same without religious thoughts.


          "Pythagoreanism originated in the 6th century BC, based on and around the teachings and beliefs held by Pythagoras and his followers, the Pythagoreans. Pythagoras established the first Pythagorean community in the ancient Greek colony of Kroton, in modern Calabria (Italy). Early Pythagorean communities spread throughout Magna Graecia. "

          As i understand it is that Pythagoreanism is the teaching of the mathematic people those people who believe in logic axioms and mathematics axioms and common sense axioms.

          they the mathematics people are more or less the enemy of these Babylonian Abrahamic​ relativism.
          the Babylonian Abrahamic​ relativism people are just Satanists so this means the Pythagoreanism people are just the enemies of the Satanism people.

          the Satanists believe in laws created by humans.
          the Pythagoreanism are more or less pagans they believe in natural laws means axioms what nature gives us
          so i am clearly on the side of the Pythagoreanism people and against the Babylonian Abrahamic​ relativism.
          Babylonian Abrahamic​ relativism makes people really stupid.

          they believe in nothing and question everything even themself!!!

          they do not even believe in natural axioms as "death"
          death ends your life this is a axiom these people believe that there is life after death
          this is more than stupid​.
          Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

          Comment


          • All these long debate of ancient philosophy are so tiring.

            Science doesn't work by relativism nor does it work by common sense axiom. Science work by recognizing we can get the most useful result if we embrace objectivity, form experiments and theories around such belief in objectivity, AND be cautious that any common known "reasons" of phenomenons can be wrong, to be subjected to perpetual corrections.

            Meanwhile, we also need to be cautious that common words are not restricted by science as they exist before science and outside science. The current scientific definition of a word cannot outlaw how a word is used commonly. Science is the borrower of language, not the judge of language.

            Human language is a construct from humans and works as interaction among individual beings. Thus its proper domain isn't objectivity nor subjectivity. Its proper domain is *intersubjectivity*.
            Last edited by billyswong; 20 June 2024, 10:46 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by qarium View Post
              I strongly disagree here. because in the last 50+ years we had multible court cases with similar situation and many of them where solved by logic and common sense and mathematics and computer science in a way that was not possible at the time of Babylon natural philosophers did write down this story.
              all these computer similations are based on logic axioms and also mathematic axioms and also common sense axioms.
              1) the Babylon cart story is a story of a court case in Babylon.
              2) Court cases operate on the standard for guilty of "beyond reasonable doubt​" this is not axiom.
              3) mathematics axioms are not common sense axioms.
              4) I am not using Solipsism or kent.

              1 + 1 = 2 right.
              So how do you have 1a + 1a =1a as a valid math formular.
              That simple in maths a=0. Now what would be 1a + 1a =1a in natural philosophy, That right a hole in the ground + hole in the ground made in exactly the same spot equals 1 hole in the ground.

              Zero is a magic number that causes most mathematics axioms start being wrong then you find this wrong in nature with void objects.

              Legal system jury of one peers this is to use a group of people with all their difference bias to work out the most probable case.



              The Babylon. example is references by Thales of Miletus in his work. Solopsism says you trust your own mind . Scientific Method and Thales says you don't trust your own mind. Repeatability​ and reproducibility are path of Scientific Method and Thales.

              Independent verification is absolutely not solopsism because this say you trust your own mind that is not Thales. Thales you trust that your own mind is flawed this is why he included references because he wanted his work checked..

              A person say they saw a man question now is did they see a man? this is where you start getting not natural limitations. Man has XY chromosomes right can a woman has XY chromosomes and be a woman the answer is can in many different ways. A Woman has XX chromosomes most commonly can have man have XX chromosomes again the answer is yes.


              Blood group chimer-ism is a fun one. Like you could have the other sex to your blood and part of your organs and so on also be this other dna. So people are walking around who are a mix of male and female who majority of these no clue.

              No absolute truth is part of Thales but this is based on the horrible reality that when you get into natural philosophers and modern science and fair legal systems you never have absolute truth you just have what the legal system calls "beyond reasonable doubt​" or the science world peer reviewed acceptance.

              Language does in fact work in a probability world with no absolute truth. A person is called a man if a person is over 90% sure the person is man but the person could be wrong. Yes court wiriness statements over time says when a person says they saw a man or a woman and are just trying to go by body features they are wrong about 1/10 of the time.

              The natural world does not play well with absolutes instead likes shades of grey/probabilities. Science is based on probabilities and plays in the zero axiom breaking section of mathematics.

              qarium this is the problem with the natural world that a common sense answer can be completely wrong. You see what you think is a man a full body inspection they are a man but they were born female.....and the list goes on. Common sense basically goes out window there are no hard and fast rules you can apply without being wrong in different cases.

              Natural philosophy, Science and the legal courts does not prove anything they just find the most probability correct answer but that answer could always be wrong and future evidence may show this.

              Qarium a system based on probability is different to Kent and Aristotle​.

              Probability based as Thales is happens to disagree with Kent and Aristotle. There are no axioms or common sense is instead everything just just probabilities of correct. You call someone man when in your eyes they are most probability a man you call a person a woman when they are most probability a woman. Each person has different factors like look at to make a call that a person is a man or women and these are based on what they have personally experienced. More people who say if it person is man or woman the more likely the answer will be right. There is no common sense here or common knowledge at play.

              Thales you have multi individual knowledge being used as a group to get to a unified answer that has a higher probability of being correct than individual alone. But this is not common sense because a different group multi individual knowledge is likely to draw totally different results at times.

              1) Concept of common knowledge is not part of Thales so not Aristotle.
              2) Concept that ones own mind is trust-able is also not part of Thales so not Kent
              3) Concept of absolute truth is not part of Thales.

              ​Thales is not Kent or Aristotle instead is it own thing Qarium. Yes all these debates over Kent vs Aristotle have no valid use against a person who follows Thales.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by billyswong View Post
                All these long debate of ancient philosophy are so tiring.
                i am sorry but with oiaohm as ​opponent​ i could not resist to give him a history lesson.
                but you with your words here you literally say the same as i said the posts before i said his knowlege is 4000 years outdated. this means "debate of ancient philosophy are so tiring" this is true because all these concepts did not know computer simulations in super-computers and also not AI... and AI based computer simulations.

                most of these ancient philosophy standpoints can be disproven by computer simulation as i already said at the posts before this post.

                Originally posted by billyswong View Post
                Science doesn't work by relativism nor does it work by common sense axiom. Science work by recognizing we can get the most useful result if we embrace objectivity, form experiments and theories around such belief in objectivity, AND be cautious that any common known "reasons" of phenomenons can be wrong, to be subjected to perpetual corrections.
                I am sorry to tell you that what you say here is common sense...
                "cience work by recognizing we can get the most useful result if we embrace objectivity, form experiments and theories around such belief in objectivity, AND be cautious that any common known "reasons" of phenomenons can be wrong, to be subjected to perpetual corrections."
                exactly this is common sense. or else what do you believe is common sense if not exactly that ?
                all the super computers who run software simulations of science projects run exactly such programs.
                and these programs all run by logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms.

                Originally posted by billyswong View Post
                Meanwhile, we also need to be cautious that common words are not restricted by science as they exist before science and outside science. The current scientific definition of a word cannot outlaw how a word is used commonly. Science is the borrower of language, not the judge of language.
                well you said this well but you know the forum user drastic did try exactly this he claimed that only the
                scientific definition of a word count and the definition used commonly is outlawed in his claim.
                well this is so stupid. but thank you!!!! you descried the true common core ground perfectly.
                but just keep in mind what i said to drastic i said to him that he has "inflexible mind" because he really believe that the science definition outlaw the commonly used definition in the normal human language.

                Originally posted by billyswong View Post
                Human language is a construct from humans and works as interaction among individual beings. Thus its proper domain isn't objectivity nor subjectivity. Its proper domain is *intersubjectivity*.
                "intersubjectivity" This is what I described as communication between two people.​
                thats the reason why you can not drive Relativism and deconstruction of the language itself.
                because if you do then the communication between 2 subjects breaks down and communication is no longer possible. Relativism and Deconstruction of language is incompatible with intersubjectivity.

                you can use computer simulation to emulate the communication between 2 subjects.
                this is the reason why the communication between 2 people is connected to logic axioms and mathematic axioms and also common sense axioms.

                did you get the news that OpenAI/ChatGPT4 did solve the turing test with 54% means 54% of all humans declared the AI on the other side of the chat is a human. this alone proof that the communication between 2 people is connected to logic axioms and mathematic axioms and also common sense axioms.
                Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                Comment


                • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                  1) the Babylon cart story is a story of a court case in Babylon.
                  the joke here what you try not to admit is that the same court case 4000 years ago resulted in a different outcome than the same court case in 2024. means your Babylonian teaching is outdated.

                  today we have many examples of such court cases who the lawyers and judges could not decide correctly because of Babylonian style relativism then a real scientist with math and computer science skills pops up
                  makes a computer simulation or even a AI driven computer simulation and gives a 100% result.
                  then the court case goes exactly as the computer simulation resultet. and not some Babylon style bullshit.
                  in this computer simulation there is no Relativism because of subjective relative viewpoints.
                  the computer simulation does not suffer from a problem called subjective relative viewpoints.

                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                  2) Court cases operate on the standard for guilty of "beyond reasonable doubt​" this is not axiom.
                  i am pretty sure that modern computer simulation eliminate any "beyond reasonable doubt​" bullshit.
                  the "beyond reasonable doubt​" is a human subjective relative viewpoints relativism term the computer simulation does not know this.

                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                  4) I am not using Solipsism or kent.​
                  well thats your problem now because i did use it as an example. deal with it or give up and give in.

                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                  3) mathematics axioms are not common sense axioms.
                  1 + 1 = 2 right.
                  I doubt​ that i am pretty sure 1 + 1 is not 2... please proof it to me without the use of any logic axiom and mathematical axiom and also not common sense axiom.
                  my opinion is that any mathematics axioms is derived​ from common sense axioms.


                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                  So how do you have 1a + 1a =1a as a valid math formular.
                  That simple in maths a=0. Now what would be 1a + 1a =1a in natural philosophy, That right a hole in the ground + hole in the ground made in exactly the same spot equals 1 hole in the ground.
                  without logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms there is no valid math formula.
                  we could start with i doubt the word "So" please proof to me without any logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms.
                  I also doubt the letter "S" you use please proof to me without any logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms.
                  i also doubt the word "hole" please proof to me without any logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms.
                  by the way i also doubt the dot "." please proof to me without any logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms.
                  i also doubt "+" please proof to me without any logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms.

                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                  Zero is a magic number that causes most mathematics axioms start being wrong then you find this wrong in nature with void objects.
                  I doubt all the spaces between your words please proof to me without any logic axioms and mathematic axioms and common sense axioms.

                  Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                  Legal system jury of one peers this is to use a group of people with all their difference bias to work out the most probable case.
                  https://www.verywellmind.com/can-you...timony-4579757
                  mass psychosis and mass wrong memory is a well known fact. just keep in mind such mass eyewitness
                  testimony where beaten by computer simulations multiple times. computer simulations could falsify such mass psychosis and mass wrong memory multiple times in the past. best example is the 911 world trade center terror attack who computer simulation could falsify TV reports and people had mass psychosis and mass wrong memory because these people then believed what they did see in the TV where their own memory but computer simulations did proof them all wrong.
                  Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                    The Babylon. example is references by Thales of Miletus in his work. Solopsism says you trust your own mind . Scientific Method and Thales says you don't trust your own mind. Repeatability​ and reproducibility are path of Scientific Method and Thales.


                    Sorry but nowhere in Solipsism is said that you trust your own mind. it claims there is only your mind. no one claims that you trust this (only) mind. a person with Solipsism can be a believe of Thales and Scientific Methods yes but he can not communicate with another person because well there is no other person.

                    you said you do not want any common sense axioms and you said no logic axioms and no math axioms deal with it there is no other person you are alone and you and your mind you are alone and if you trust your mind or if you do not trust your mind does not matter you are alone you can not communicate with another person because there is no other person its only your psychosis.

                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                    Independent verification is absolutely not solopsism because this say you trust your own mind that is not Thales. Thales you trust that your own mind is flawed this is why he included references because he wanted his work checked..


                    independent verification is not possible in Solipsism because there is no other person who could perform the
                    independent verification. again Solipsism does not say that you trust your own mind. Solipsism claims there is no other mind than your mind. this is the reason why independent verification is not possible in Solipsism​.
                    the work can not be checked by another person because there is only your mind.

                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                    A person say they saw a man question now is did they see a man? this is where you start getting not natural limitations. Man has XY chromosomes right can a woman has XY chromosomes and be a woman the answer is can in many different ways. A Woman has XX chromosomes most commonly can have man have XX chromosomes again the answer is yes.


                    in Solipsism there is no person there is only your mind. you can also not see anything you just have psychosis to see a man. its only your mind who fools you to see something. there can not anything natural because there is only your mind who fools you. there are no chromosoms there is only psychosis of chromosoms in your mind.
                    there can not be a man or a women because there is only your mind in Solipsism everything else is psychosis.
                    i am pretty sure if only your mind exists no women can have xx chromosoms because you can only have psychosis of chromosomes. how can the answer be YES if there is only your mind and psychosis ?

                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post


                    Blood group chimer-ism is a fun one. Like you could have the other sex to your blood and part of your organs and so on also be this other dna. So people are walking around who are a mix of male and female who majority of these no clue.


                    in Solipsism there is no human chimera there is only your mind having psychosis of human chimera.
                    yes i know having no common sense axiom is a fun one in this Solipsism game Blood group chimer-ism does not exist only your mind having psychosis of Blood group chimer-ism...
                    in Solipsism there is no organs and no blood there is only your mind having psychosis of blood and organs.
                    no one can walk around in Solipsism because there is only your mind and any walk around is psychosis.

                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                    No absolute truth is part of Thales but this is based on the horrible reality that when you get into natural philosophers and modern science and fair legal systems you never have absolute truth you just have what the legal system calls "beyond reasonable doubt​" or the science world peer reviewed acceptance.


                    with having no common sense axioms Solipsism is a fun game because in Solipsism there is only your mind and everything else is psychosis there is no Thales there is only psychosis of Thales.
                    there are no natural Philosophers there is only psychosis of natural philosophers.
                    there is no fair legal system there is only psychosis of fair legal system in the Solipsism is a fun game.
                    Solipsism because of no common sense axioms does not need peer reviewed acceptance because there is only your mind and a psychosis of peer reviewed acceptance...

                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                    Language does in fact work in a probability world with no absolute truth. A person is called a man if a person is over 90% sure the person is man but the person could be wrong. Yes court wiriness statements over time says when a person says they saw a man or a woman and are just trying to go by body features they are wrong about 1/10 of the time.


                    i am pretty sure that in Solipsism language does not exist outside of your mind and in your mind its just a psychosis abouer language. with no absolut truth Solipsism is the result and you only have psychosis about a world with no absolute truth. you just have psychosis about talking thet a person is called a man in reality there is only your mind and you are alone alone. in Solipsism you as a person can not be wrong because you are only your mind and everything else is psychosis. in Solipsism there is no court witness statements only psychosis of that. in Solipsism you can only have psychosis of being 1/10 wrong of time anyway time is also just illusion in Solipsism.


                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                    The natural world does not play well with absolutes instead likes shades of grey/probabilities. Science is based on probabilities and plays in the zero axiom breaking section of mathematics.
                    qarium this is the problem with the natural world that a common sense answer can be completely wrong. You see what you think is a man a full body inspection they are a man but they were born female.....and the list goes on. Common sense basically goes out window there are no hard and fast rules you can apply without being wrong in different cases.
                    Natural philosophy, Science and the legal courts does not prove anything they just find the most probability correct answer but that answer could always be wrong and future evidence may show this.
                    Qarium a system based on probability is different to Kent and Aristotle​.
                    Probability based as Thales is happens to disagree with Kent and Aristotle. There are no axioms or common sense is instead everything just just probabilities of correct. You call someone man when in your eyes they are most probability a man you call a person a woman when they are most probability a woman. Each person has different factors like look at to make a call that a person is a man or women and these are based on what they have personally experienced. More people who say if it person is man or woman the more likely the answer will be right. There is no common sense here or common knowledge at play.
                    Thales you have multi individual knowledge being used as a group to get to a unified answer that has a higher probability of being correct than individual alone. But this is not common sense because a different group multi individual knowledge is likely to draw totally different results at times.
                    1) Concept of common knowledge is not part of Thales so not Aristotle.
                    2) Concept that ones own mind is trust-able is also not part of Thales so not Kent
                    3) Concept of absolute truth is not part of Thales.
                    ​Thales is not Kent or Aristotle instead is it own thing Qarium. Yes all these debates over Kent vs Aristotle have no valid use against a person who follows Thales.


                    you do not unterstand one single thing: without common sense axioms Solipsism is valid and this means that all what you say here only exist in your own mind and you just having psychosis about all of this.
                    communication is not possible because there is only YOUR mind. no other person is here only your psychosis of other persons.
                    and again in Solipsism no one claims that you trust your own mind they just say there is only your mind and everything else is psychosis.

                    as you see if you do not accept any common sense axioms like that other people exist and Solipsism is not valid and yes this is a common sense axiom then you see the communication is over. because well its just psychosis.
                    Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                    Comment


                    • Looks like I wasn't clear enough. It is fine to use common sense but it is abusive to suggest basing stuff on "common sense axioms". Mathematical axioms exist because there is a limit of what one can prove. There must be a foundation where one stop digging the rabbit hole. We then call such foundation "axioms".

                      Common sense is NOT reductionist since the beginning. We can't group common sense examples together, do some logical induction through them, then claim the common pattern within to be a more "fundamental" common sense. When we do logical thinking upon common sense examples, the conclusions we reached is no longer part of the common sense, at least not until it flourishes among the masses and become a new common sense.

                      Common sense also differs in various culture and societies. Unlike mathematics axioms.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X