4 ms·

> That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. AH. Given that framing, then I suppose anything that varies from "these axioms are perfect there

by qarl 15d ago

> That very much falls within the "IP is not real" category. AH. Given that framing, then I suppose anything that varies from "these axioms are perfect there can be no others" must fall into the "not real" category. But isn't there some debate about the moral axioms themselves? A space that is much more complex than "yes/no"? EDIT: I always wonder, when I get two downvotes in the same moment, if someone is cheating. It happens so often. EDIT2: And now! 3 upvotes in the same moment. I daresay someone is confessing.

yndoendo 15d ago
Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements. Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable. Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power.
- qarl 15d ago
  > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures. > mathematical axioms are immutable I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate.
  - zdragnar 15d ago
    So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.
    - qarl 15d ago
      Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.
      - zdragnar 15d ago
        Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water. Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth).
        qarl 15d ago
        I think you missed my point. Let me try again: > ergo no social construct predates wealth. What about the social construct of parenting?
        zdragnar 15d ago
        Easily argued to be a natural, biological instinct, and not a social construct.
        qarl 15d ago
        Yes, most social contracts do stem from evolved strategies. That was my original point. But parenting in humans varies from culture to culture. That's what makes it a social construct.
    - pixl97 15d ago
      >ergo no social construct predates wealth. How wealthy is your dog?
      - zdragnar 15d ago
        Compared to feral dogs, quite wealthy indeed. They've claimed sleeping and feeding spots that are very valuable for being both safe and climate controlled, and have a number of chew bones and toys that are free of dangerous splintering wood, animal bone, parasites and fleas. These are things that are valuable enough to fight over and will contribute greatly to their lifespan. If you think the only measure of wealth is money, you have it backwards- money is a polite fiction representing an abstraction of value, and is only good for use as an exchange into another more concrete form of value.
  - yndoendo 15d ago
    "The Axioms of choice" is talking about a mutable set of sets that contain immutable axioms. The number 4 in a set is immutable, 4 == 4 under all stances, while it can be taken out or added to the selected set. Objective reasoning. Example: The OS function that applies IP port assignments. Application may utilize one or more port numbers. When the application is done, they are moved back into the unused set. The port numbers themselves are immutable. Social axioms are mutable because subjective reasoning is being applied. Example: Ask a person if they support domestic abuse. They most likely will so no. Ask them if they ever funded a performer that committed acts of domestic abuse after the facts were revealed. There is a high chance they did and write it off by saying, "don't look at their character, look at how well they perform. That was a good show, movie, book, ..." Ever hear someone use the phrase, "that is different" when describing two equal scenarios that apply to two different people? Kanye West still selling out shows highlights that people are willing to reject objective reasoning in a social environment. Or to rephrase, social axioms are mutable because they can collapse and no longer exist.
    - qarl 15d ago
      My point was - mathematicians still argue about whether the axiom of choice is a good idea or not. They probably always will. So mathematical axioms are in flux.
      - yndoendo 14d ago
        Axioms are not in flux, set of axioms are in flux. Axioms are fixed and finite. This is how software works. Gödel's incompleteness theorems is built around this. By saying axioms change then one could create an universal math theorem. Since axioms are finite in definition and applied in a finite space, functions, there cannot be an universal math. Example: Fibonacci sequence only works with positive integers and zero. It will work with negative integers wrapped in absolute value. The axioms of Fibonacci did not change while wrapped in absolute value. Rational and irrational numbers can work with Fibonacci too by applying another function bound to absolute value.
        14d ago
- RunSet 15d ago
  > Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
  - yndoendo 15d ago
    That is a micro level analysis versus macro. By that logic the current wealth gap should not exist between CEO and average worker in the USA.
paimapi 15d ago
no, I think people are just annoyed that you're trying to have an irrelevant and kinda cheesy 'is epistemology really real - think about it bro' conversation I'm also a fan of nuance and non-black&white thinking but that is quite literally not how the rule of law generally works
- qarl 15d ago
  No - I'm specifically calling out that the total changes abruptly. As if someone were using multiple accounts.
  - paimapi 15d ago
    that's cool - I downvoted you because I was annoyed and I am an independent entity. hope that helps :)
    - qarl 15d ago
      Of course! My only suggestion is - if you're using multiple accounts to do it - that would be naughty.
      - paimapi 15d ago
        that seems very anti-social and immature, like throwing a tantrum. you get a singular downvote from me for one comment but I do like how reasonable you're being about all of it :)

by qarl 15d ago

yndoendo 15d ago

Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Most people want a clean environment while the current US administration is pulling back environmental regulations to allow for more pollutants. The current US Supreme Court has taken gifts from those that have invested interest in the outcome of their judgements. Social axioms are mutable while mathematical axioms are immutable. Human trafficking is bad. How many of the wealthy that partook of Epstein's trafficking have been prosecuted? This shows that human trafficking being bad is mutable based on wealth and power.

qarl 15d ago
> Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. Well... no. I'd say that most of the social constructs I'm thinking of predate wealth. Most likely shaped by evolutionary pressures. > mathematical axioms are immutable I invite you to Google "the axiom of choice" to see a lively debate.
- zdragnar 15d ago
  So long as there have been people, there have been those who had more than others, be it material goods or power, which gains more material goods, which begets power. I'm not really sure there it's true that any society predates wealth, ergo no social construct predates wealth.
  - qarl 15d ago
    Right. I'm thinking of social behaviors that predate humans.
    - zdragnar 15d ago
      Territory and hunting grounds are a form of wealth, in that it is a form of control over shelter and natural resources like food and water. Money is a social construct for trading value, but is not itself a prerequisite for the accumulation of value (wealth).
      - qarl 15d ago
        I think you missed my point. Let me try again: > ergo no social construct predates wealth. What about the social construct of parenting?
        zdragnar 15d ago
        Easily argued to be a natural, biological instinct, and not a social construct.
        qarl 15d ago
        Yes, most social contracts do stem from evolved strategies. That was my original point. But parenting in humans varies from culture to culture. That's what makes it a social construct.
  - pixl97 15d ago
    >ergo no social construct predates wealth. How wealthy is your dog?
    - zdragnar 15d ago
      Compared to feral dogs, quite wealthy indeed. They've claimed sleeping and feeding spots that are very valuable for being both safe and climate controlled, and have a number of chew bones and toys that are free of dangerous splintering wood, animal bone, parasites and fleas. These are things that are valuable enough to fight over and will contribute greatly to their lifespan. If you think the only measure of wealth is money, you have it backwards- money is a polite fiction representing an abstraction of value, and is only good for use as an exchange into another more concrete form of value.
- yndoendo 15d ago
  "The Axioms of choice" is talking about a mutable set of sets that contain immutable axioms. The number 4 in a set is immutable, 4 == 4 under all stances, while it can be taken out or added to the selected set. Objective reasoning. Example: The OS function that applies IP port assignments. Application may utilize one or more port numbers. When the application is done, they are moved back into the unused set. The port numbers themselves are immutable. Social axioms are mutable because subjective reasoning is being applied. Example: Ask a person if they support domestic abuse. They most likely will so no. Ask them if they ever funded a performer that committed acts of domestic abuse after the facts were revealed. There is a high chance they did and write it off by saying, "don't look at their character, look at how well they perform. That was a good show, movie, book, ..." Ever hear someone use the phrase, "that is different" when describing two equal scenarios that apply to two different people? Kanye West still selling out shows highlights that people are willing to reject objective reasoning in a social environment. Or to rephrase, social axioms are mutable because they can collapse and no longer exist.
  - qarl 15d ago
    My point was - mathematicians still argue about whether the axiom of choice is a good idea or not. They probably always will. So mathematical axioms are in flux.
    - yndoendo 14d ago
      Axioms are not in flux, set of axioms are in flux. Axioms are fixed and finite. This is how software works. Gödel's incompleteness theorems is built around this. By saying axioms change then one could create an universal math theorem. Since axioms are finite in definition and applied in a finite space, functions, there cannot be an universal math. Example: Fibonacci sequence only works with positive integers and zero. It will work with negative integers wrapped in absolute value. The axioms of Fibonacci did not change while wrapped in absolute value. Rational and irrational numbers can work with Fibonacci too by applying another function bound to absolute value.
      - 14d ago
RunSet 15d ago
> Social constructs are bought and paid for by the wealthy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
- yndoendo 15d ago
  That is a micro level analysis versus macro. By that logic the current wealth gap should not exist between CEO and average worker in the USA.

paimapi 15d ago

no, I think people are just annoyed that you're trying to have an irrelevant and kinda cheesy 'is epistemology really real - think about it bro' conversation I'm also a fan of nuance and non-black&white thinking but that is quite literally not how the rule of law generally works

qarl 15d ago
No - I'm specifically calling out that the total changes abruptly. As if someone were using multiple accounts.
- paimapi 15d ago
  that's cool - I downvoted you because I was annoyed and I am an independent entity. hope that helps :)
  - qarl 15d ago
    Of course! My only suggestion is - if you're using multiple accounts to do it - that would be naughty.
    - paimapi 15d ago
      that seems very anti-social and immature, like throwing a tantrum. you get a singular downvote from me for one comment but I do like how reasonable you're being about all of it :)