There is no absolute chaos

jamest · **#81** by **jamest** » Jan 04, 2020 6:40 am

deleted

Cito di Pense · **#82** by **Cito di Pense** » Jan 04, 2020 6:41 am

jamest wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
jamest wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:

You haven't sailed anything anywhere. Break a leg, as they say.

I've had a few interesting encounters with vessels of various types, for sure. My wife said that I reminded her of Indiana Jones on one of them!

Regardless, continue to do your sincere best to sink me, as always.

No one can sink you if you don't ever try sailing. I don't know what you think you're doing here, but it's a pantomime of discourse. The sort of philosophy you're at, here, requires you to define order and chaos before you start, instead of assuming these are definitions with which anyone who wants to talk to you will concur. Imagining you have that is how you always start and is why you never sail anywhere.

jamest wrote:
That post wasn't addressed to you. I've never for one moment thought that you were angry with me. You're too arrogant to have any such emotion.

No one here will accuse me of being overly sentimental, but that's not the same thing.

Nobody ever takes me seriously here. If my OP had been 10X as long, some daft cunt would still have said that I hadn't proved xyz as a response.

If you offered definitions of the terms you want to discuss, instead of publishing a conclusion you expect everyone to reach by means of some route you have not yourself mapped out because it lacks a starting point, then you'd have to contend with critique of your definitions, rather than critique of the empty verbiage you generate, and which follows from nothing. That's why people use the term non sequitur to describe some of your sentences.

Thommo · **#83** by **Thommo** » Jan 04, 2020 6:46 am

Indeed, the problem is very much not about length, but about content.

A non sequitur is an unjustified conclusion. Rather than claim it's been reached by some process (which isn't then shared, or which is horribly flawed) one could just state their conclusions. Of course, in this more transparent form the conversation might be much shorter.

"Person X" : I believe in God.
"Person Y" : I don't.

Cito di Pense · **#84** by **Cito di Pense** » Jan 04, 2020 6:48 am

Thommo wrote:Indeed, the problem is very much not about length, but about content.

A non sequitur is an unjustified conclusion. Rather than claim it's been reached by some process (which isn't then shared, or which is horribly flawed) one could just state their conclusions. Of course, in this more transparent form the conversation might be much shorter.

"Person X" : I believe in God.
"Person Y" : I don't.

There's such a thing as being too concise. That's not jamest's first difficulty, though.

Person J: "I believe in God"
Person C: "I don't know what the fuck you're on about"
Person C1: "Tell somebody who gives a fuck"

Thommo · **#85** by **Thommo** » Jan 04, 2020 6:50 am

And that is the thread in a nutshell.

Thommo · **#86** by **Thommo** » Jan 04, 2020 6:58 am

Thommo wrote:That jamest imagines chaos as some nonspecific lack of order, where order is some sort of quantifiable property (I'm inferring it must be quantifiable from the assertion that it exists in amounts, but there's just as much chance I'll be chastised for the inference as having it elucidated).

There's also quite a bit of fun to be had experimenting with what it means to be disordered (given the standard logical and mathematical conceptions of order and the dimensions they may apply to) and how one might measure it.

Suppose ABCD are four letters of the alphabet that are placed in their standard order.

Is BCDA as disordered as CDAB and DABC? Those are cycles of the original order, if we imagine that D -> A there's been no change at all.

Is DCBA as disorderly as possible? This is just a reversal of the ordering.

What about DABC or DBCA?

Obviously I'm anticipating this will all be read from left to right, by which I mean that the earliest character read is on the left of the page and the latest on the right with monotonic progression between. I don't know how I'd explain that if I lived in a universe which didn't have (apparently) ordered/orderable space and time dimensions.

ETA: What about orders of different lengths of sequences of letters? Is the empty sequence "" fully ordered, fully disordered, both or neither?

What about the sequence A? Is that more or less disordered than the empty sequence? Does it make sense to ask such a question about a single element?

ETA2: Thinking about it, based on past experience I expect this topic will now have run its course. So I may as well finish my thought about where I would guess this could have ended up.

How about comparing sequences of undifferentiated letters, AAAA with sequences of perfectly ordered ones ABCD? Which of those is more absolutely ordered? Is AAAA ordered at all? What if that is brought back around to god concepts? Is an unchanging god perfectly ordered (glossing over what it means for a god to be ordered at all, which is no small thing to ignore)? Is a god which is ordered on more things more or less perfectly ordered? Is a god which has thoughts and feelings changing its order, are all such states equally ordered? Does a god which is also a person inherently contain some disorder, and thus forfeit all claim to perfect order or absolute order?

Spearthrower · **#87** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2020 6:59 am

jamest wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
jamest wrote:
Even though you want to shaft every inch of my being,...

Ugh no.

What I want is you to stop the control dramas and grow. Be a force for something positive here instead of what you've become.

Ugh no, I don't want to be anyone here but myself. I'm a hero, ffs, but nobody knows it yet.

Cito di Pense · **#88** by **Cito di Pense** » Jan 04, 2020 7:00 am

Thommo wrote:And that is the thread in a nutshell.

Here's the problem:

jamest wrote:If you have any objections to the OP then address my reasoning therein.

jamest doesn't regard this as discourse. JJ does this, too. It's a delusion of having published something.

Spearthrower · **#89** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2020 7:02 am

jamest wrote:
Nobody ever takes me seriously here.

And that is:

a) Everyone else's fault
b) Your fault

jamest wrote: If my OP had been 10X as long, some daft cunt would still have said that I hadn't proved xyz as a response. And some daft cunt would still have... etc..

Again, the length of the post is a distraction. No one's accused you of not proving something. What people have said is that your argument isn't really an argument as it just contains a series of assertions, and you haven't defined your terms.

Calling people daft cunts isn't going to revise documented history - valid problems have been raised with your OP, you haven't even tried to respond, you've just tried to make everything personal - that appears to be a rhetorical strategy to avoid engaging in any form of discussion.

Spearthrower · **#90** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2020 7:08 am

That jamest imagines chaos as some nonspecific lack of order, where order is some sort of quantifiable property (I'm inferring it must be quantifiable from the assertion that it exists in amounts, but there's just as much chance I'll be chastised for the inference as having it elucidated).

Agreed; there are many nested problems within the OP, but teasing them out and addressing them is going to be impossible if we can't even discuss a working definition of the terms used. I think it's unlikely that anyone else here would treat the concepts of chaos and order as antithetical platonic quantities, inversely proportional to one another.

Cito di Pense · **#91** by **Cito di Pense** » Jan 04, 2020 7:10 am

Spearthrower wrote:
That jamest imagines chaos as some nonspecific lack of order, where order is some sort of quantifiable property (I'm inferring it must be quantifiable from the assertion that it exists in amounts, but there's just as much chance I'll be chastised for the inference as having it elucidated).

Agreed; there are many nested problems within the OP, but teasing them out and addressing them is going to be impossible if we can't even discuss a working definition of the terms used. I think it's unlikely that anyone else here would treat the concepts of chaos and order as antithetical platonic quantities, inversely proportional to one another.

Platonic? Nay, Biblical.

Spearthrower · **#92** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 04, 2020 7:12 am

2nd Plato 4:8-16

Fenrir · **#93** by **Fenrir** » Jan 04, 2020 7:17 am

That jamest imagines chaos as some nonspecific lack of order, where order is some sort of quantifiable property (I'm inferring it must be quantifiable from the assertion that it exists in amounts, but there's just as much chance I'll be chastised for the inference as having it elucidated).

A: Don't do that. It upsets my CDO.

B: Don't you mean OCD?

A: No. It's similar but all the letters are in alphabetical order. AS THEY SHOULD BE!

Cito di Pense · **#94** by **Cito di Pense** » Jan 04, 2020 7:19 am

Spearthrower wrote:2nd Plato 4:8-16

the old UNIX fortune program comes once again to our aid:

A doctor, an architect, and a computer scientist were arguing about whose profession was the oldest. In the course of their arguments, they got all the way back to the Garden of Eden, whereupon the doctor said, "The medical profession is clearly the oldest, because Eve was made from Adam's rib, as the story goes, and that was a simply incredible surgical feat."

The architect did not agree. He said, "But if you look at the Garden itself, in the beginning there was chaos and void, and out of that the Garden and the world were created. So God must have been an architect."

The computer scientist, who'd listened carefully to all of this, then commented, "Yes, but where do you think the chaos came from?"

OlivierK · **#95** by **OlivierK** » Jan 04, 2020 7:21 am

jamest wrote:Member X: xyz therefore God.

Member Y: You didn't prove xyz.

Member X: You didn't address anything specific within my post. What is it that you want me to address?

Member Y: The bits where you didn't prove xyz.

Member X: Which bits, specifically? Where is it that you think I've failed.

Member Y: You just failed, dumbass.

Yep, pretty much this.

Sincerely, james, the criticism you're receiving (and seemingly failing to comprehend) is not that your reasoning is flawed, it's that your reasoning is entirely absent. That's why nobody is pointing to specific flaws. It's not a vindication, it's a sign of the completeness of your failure to provide an argument at all. You're like a kid who's handed in a drawing of a car for his maths test, and wants to bullshit his way to a 100% mark by challenging his teacher to find a specific mathematical error in his answers.

But if you want specifics, people have been kind enough to quote back to you specific statements in your OP which are non-sequiturs. You could start there.

Thommo · **#96** by **Thommo** » Jan 04, 2020 7:32 am

Fenrir wrote:
That jamest imagines chaos as some nonspecific lack of order, where order is some sort of quantifiable property (I'm inferring it must be quantifiable from the assertion that it exists in amounts, but there's just as much chance I'll be chastised for the inference as having it elucidated).

A: Don't do that. It upsets my CDO.

B: Don't you mean OCD?

A: No. It's similar but all the letters are in alphabetical order. AS THEY SHOULD BE!

CDO is great. It also arranges the symbols in order of the length of line used to draw them.

SafeAsMilk · **#97** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jan 04, 2020 1:51 pm

jamest wrote:Member X: xyz therefore God.

Member Y: You didn't prove xyz.

Member X: You didn't address anything specific within my post. What is it that you want me to address?

Member Y: The bits where you didn't prove xyz.

Member X: Which bits, specifically? Where is it that you think I've failed.

Member Y: You just failed, dumbass.

So basically, folks addressed the specific fundamental problems with your post, and your response is to pretend they're talking about something else, leaving folks no option other than to make fun of it.

Yeah, sounds about right :lol:

felltoearth · **#98** by **felltoearth** » Jan 04, 2020 2:37 pm

Gets two reasonable responses and then says this.

jamest wrote:
This is the philosophy forum and whatever mathematics says, I'm not interested. So, shove it.

jamest wrote:
Right, I'm going to finish watching the film. I'll be back to review the abuse later.

Troll.

felltoearth · **#99** by **felltoearth** » Jan 04, 2020 3:34 pm

I don’t recall signing up to a vitner website, regardless I got an email today directing me to a blog post about the world’s most misunderstood grape.
I read the post, and not once did it mention that the grape complained.
Imagine being the most misunderstood thing of things in the world and not once complaining.
We should all think of how this grape suffers silently.
Poor grape.

LucidFlight · **#100** by **LucidFlight** » Jan 04, 2020 3:50 pm

I have a strange attraction to this thread. The initial conditions laid out by jamest have led to several predictable outcomes, yet who could have predicted the exact detail of each response? Fascinating stuff indeed.

There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Re: There is no absolute chaos

Who is online