Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:I don't get that

I just looked for something with the word "order" in it. If I can change my order, it isn't absolute. Your order is no different. I understand that my order has shipped; I just don't know when it's going to get here.

I haven't sailed the sea of relative order here, so gimme a break. If I had, I'd be firing my cannons and sinking many ships. I might spare yours though, even though being soft won't earmark me as being the next Nelson.

Thankfully, my sights are higher than his.

jamest wrote:In what fucking dimension do you envisage that I wouldn't see right-through the likes of you and Thommo?

This one. It's the one where you mistake sincere posts for insincerity with monotonous regularity. You can't see through your preconceptions to the meaning of the responses you get.

If you want to elicit a more analytical and discursive set of responses you would probably do better to cut out the abuse, all the off topic stuff you introduce (I mean, seriously, your first sentence is about a Jason Statham movie, just how serious do you think you are?) and rise to meet criticisms instead of just "respond" to them.

SAM pointed out that your statements were non sequiturs, Spinozasgalt made this point a second time, Fenrir pointed out the actual recognised meaning of chaos in philosophy, I pointed out your lack of definitions. You could just say "A proceeds from B because ..." (and actually fill in that blank, that's the key bit) or "Here's what I mean by order ..." and so on.

You don't need the song and dance and I don't think you can honestly maintain surprise that when you sing and dance people look at you as though you're acting like a court jester singing and dancing and jangling his bells that just scream "hey everyone, look at me!".

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:I don't get that

I just looked for something with the word "order" in it. If I can change my order, it isn't absolute. Your order is no different. I understand that my order has shipped; I just don't know when it's going to get here.

I haven't sailed the sea of relative order here, so gimme a break. If I had, I'd be firing my cannons and sinking many ships. I might spare yours though, even though being soft won't earmark me as being the next Nelson.

Thankfully, my sights are higher than his.

And here we go as usual with the self paeons.

For everyone watching this tawdry display, the reason you need to crow about your hypothetical achievements is because you haven't actually achieved anything and don't appear capable of doing so. You have to big yourself up because you can't convince anyone via the power of your argumentation to do so on your behalf.

I'm going to bed. You cuntz should be praising the seven seas that there's still someone smart and courageous enough here to stand up to your collective shit. Happy new year to you all. I'll see you when I can next be bothered.

Whatever you think of me, your value here is immense

Damned with praise, Cito.

You probably should be reconsidering all your life decisions about now.

jamest wrote:I'm going to bed. You cuntz should be praising the seven seas that there's still someone smart and courageous enough here to stand up to your collective shit. Happy new year to you all. I'll see you when I can next be bothered.

1) Abuse
2) Ad hominem
3) Obvious failure to respond to the substance directed at your arguments.
4) Martyr narrative as usual

You can't actually substantiate your own ideas, let alone address the rebuttals made in this thread, or even respond to the questions directly posed to you.

Dunno quite who you think you're fooling, but I would hazard a guess it includes no one here.

jamest wrote:I'm going to bed. You cuntz should be praising the seven seas that there's still someone smart and courageous enough here to stand up to your collective shit. Happy new year to you all. I'll see you when I can next be bothered.

I'm not sure you're in any position to be judging yourself smart or courageous.

This:

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

after all, was your response to being directed to the serious thinking that's taken place in philosophy on the subject of chaos.

So if I call someone a kunt and 'cleverly' use the letter 'k' instead of 'c'... does that pass the moderator analysis of the FUA's prohibition against posting personal attacks or insults?

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:I don't get that

I just looked for something with the word "order" in it. If I can change my order, it isn't absolute. Your order is no different. I understand that my order has shipped; I just don't know when it's going to get here.

I haven't sailed the sea of relative order here, so gimme a break.

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

Spearthrower wrote:

Whatever you think of me, your value here is immense

Damned with praise, Cito.

You probably should be reconsidering all your life decisions about now.

Even though you want to shaft every inch of my being, I see that you're a nice chap. Enjoy the politics and the banter, as I try to do, and don't turn snide, as many here have. Not me, I love everyone. Even Fallible and Cito. That's the secret, not being angry. At least, generally.

jamest wrote:I have zero interest in what maths has to say about a concept it has no business in defining.

I think math is probably the only valid way of defining chaos: statistics & probability

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.

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Whatever you think of me, your value here is immense

Damned with praise, Cito.

You probably should be reconsidering all your life decisions about now.

Even though you want to shaft every inch of my being, I see that you're a nice chap. Enjoy the politics and the banter, as I try to do, and don't turn snide, as many here have. Not me, I love everyone. Even Fallible and Cito. That's the secret, not being angry. At least, generally.

I'm not angry, jamest. Just bored. Some people like being bored, but you never know when you're going to meet one of them.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:I don't get that

I just looked for something with the word "order" in it. If I can change my order, it isn't absolute. Your order is no different. I understand that my order has shipped; I just don't know when it's going to get here.

I haven't sailed the sea of relative order here, so gimme a break.

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.

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Whatever you think of me, your value here is immense

Damned with praise, Cito.

You probably should be reconsidering all your life decisions about now.

Even though you want to shaft every inch of my being, I see that you're a nice chap. Enjoy the politics and the banter, as I try to do, and don't turn snide, as many here have. Not me, I love everyone. Even Fallible and Cito. That's the secret, not being angry. At least, generally.

I'm not angry, jamest. Just bored. Some people like being bored, but you never know when you're going to meet one of them.

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.

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

I just looked for something with the word "order" in it. If I can change my order, it isn't absolute. Your order is no different. I understand that my order has shipped; I just don't know when it's going to get here.

I haven't sailed the sea of relative order here, so gimme a break.

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.

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 wrote:

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

jamest wrote:
I haven't sailed the sea of relative order here, so gimme a break.

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. And some daft cunt would still have... etc..

Good night.

Spearthrower wrote:

jamest wrote:I have zero interest in what maths has to say about a concept it has no business in defining.

I think math is probably the only valid way of defining chaos: statistics & probability

It struck me as being akin to suggesting we discuss fine art while dismissing looking at any paintings or descriptions of them. It's fundamentally self-defeating, rather than "smart" or "courageous".

I can understand the impulse, just as I could if someone presenting us with Kyrani's drawings (if you remember those) and declaring them the definitive works of art might not feel too comfortable having them compared and contrasted with traditional masterworks. Chicken scratchings tend to look poor in comparison.

If we did allow logic and mathematics into the discussion, we might quickly find that it is perfectly possible to describe non-empty sets which have no order defined on them. If they are, as a philosopher might say, logically possible the next question might be "are they metaphysically possible?" at which point arguments, reasons and discussion might ensue. Is logical possibility persuasive? Are there reasons to deny the metaphysical possibility of such a structure? What would it mean, or look like if it could exist? Does our inability to visualise or describe it in terms we can relate to have any fundamental meaning, or is it sheer incredulity that can't be further justified? What does it mean when we start adding qualitative terms like "absolute" into the mix? Is jamest's blurring of the lines between metalanguage statements and statements in the language itself justified? Is Cito's suggestion that "absolute" must mean that it could not be otherwise (akin to necessity) the most natural reading of the concept?

As it stands I'm stuck at the content of the OP (and every subsequent contribution to the thread) amounting to little more than an inference from:

jamest wrote:So, by rational default there can be no amount of order in absolute chaos.

(my colour)
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).