As you decide what is right or wrong without seeking the approval of your bride, then in my eye you are self-righteous, and that is counter to the golden rule: 'wrong'. In my relationships, I appreciate those who seek my approval for what I think is right and wrong, and we make decisions together. As you turn and ask me, a stranger, asking me what is right or wrong about your decisions, I am turning you back towards your bride. Ask your bride. Seek the approval of your bride.
Going through hell before we get to heaven
- Thread starter Gatekeeper
- Start date
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
So what is "wrong" or "bad" has no basis except what some other person thinks?
In you, I don't know. How old is your bride?
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
"As you decide what is right or wrong without seeking the approval of your bride, then in my eye you are self-righteous, and that is counter to the golden rule: 'wrong'. In my relationships, I appreciate those who seek my approval for what I think is right and wrong, and we make decisions together"
Your last post was non-responsive and asked a personal question that really does not matter (according to what I have copied here).
Your last post was non-responsive and asked a personal question that really does not matter (according to what I have copied here).
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
I have no choice but to be responsible for the choices I make. What I'm trying to convey to you is that I'm not above violence when it comes to protecting the one's I love. That's just an honest acknowledgement. As far as asking permission to protect them from harm, it's my obligation to my son to keep him safe when and if I am able. I'd question a parents parenting if they allowed an aggressor to physically harm their children and do nothing to prevent it. To just sit back and watch someone beat your child to death and do nothing to prevent it, is a crime as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather live knowing I saved my son from harm, then to live knowing I could have prevented a thing and did nothing.
Gatekeeper
Shades of Reason
That's a tuff call and one only you can make. Myself, I wouldn't join the military unless I absolutely felt compelled to do so. I wish you the best whatever your choice, though.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
The Golden Rule is an ethical suggestion. It's not 1+1 = 2. Many things, and almost every person breaks it.
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth. One needs to say, "The Golden Rule and similar axiomatic systems". There's always incompleteness in any system things it doesn't cover.
The perfect isn't the enemy of the good, approximating it is the best that can be expected.
The perfect isn't the enemy of the good, approximating it is the best that can be expected.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Your posts 109 and 106 are inconsistent and self-contradictory.
It is responsive to admit that I do not know you, and do not have a relationship with you. Whether or not it is right or wrong for you to get violent, or dance with your left foot first, is perhaps more relevant to your bride, or others that have a relationship with you.
If you think about the term "Take responsibility", it is intended differently.
I think it depends on what you are wanting to teach, or hoping that the children may learn.
To do nothing would be cowardly, but I submit there are other good options than to resort to war and violence. Usually a child is beaten by their own parents, older sibling, or neighborhood kid. It would be nice to help keep your son from harm. I guess where I differ is in the method of doing it.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Post #111 -- you do not need to know me to answer the question, to wit, your posts 106 and 109 are logical contradictions of each other.
What do you mean by "take responsibility" (your words, not mine)?
What does your response to GK have to do what he said? He did not talk about teaching or learning, I think he was talking about what his moral choices were (correct me if I am wrong, GK).
Again, you are not responsive (in your third point). GK said nothing about war. And the point of a child being beaten "by their own parents, older sibling, or neighborhood kid" is not relevant at all.
You are quite good at changing the topic and argumentum ad hominem attacks. But not too good at answering direct questions or addressing the topic at hand.
What do you mean by "take responsibility" (your words, not mine)?
What does your response to GK have to do what he said? He did not talk about teaching or learning, I think he was talking about what his moral choices were (correct me if I am wrong, GK).
Again, you are not responsive (in your third point). GK said nothing about war. And the point of a child being beaten "by their own parents, older sibling, or neighborhood kid" is not relevant at all.
You are quite good at changing the topic and argumentum ad hominem attacks. But not too good at answering direct questions or addressing the topic at hand.
No they aren't. A women being raped and murdered in the street, pacifism prevents you using violence to save her. The Golden Rule demands it.
And "The Ultimate Truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth" is called a "Strange Loop" and can always be shown to involve self-reference. It is neither true or false, our system has broken down.
The Liar's Paradox, "This statement is a lie", the same thing, in a mathematical statement, is what Godel used to prove all math and logic is eternally incomplete. All logic, forever and ever, if it at least includes the natural numbers, 1, 2, 3, includes those self-reference paradoxes.
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Again, I do not espouse pacifism. The Golden Rule (again) is merely a moral commandment, not a scientific law. "The Ultimate Truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth" is indeed true (in a metaphysical, not epistemological sense). Does not say anything about "our system". Sorry, most of us know the difference between reality (experience) and meta-physics (thinking abut what must be).
You are very wrong about Goedel. Sorry. It is about what is complete and consistent. Popping up, like you do is neither complete not consistent.
If one stays on the same level (as I have, unless you can prove differently), neither his theorems nor his ontological proof apply.
I am sorry, you need some serious re-education about science and math. Web sites, regardless of the motivation of their writers, do not substitute for understanding these (very hard and complex) mathematical and physical issues.
I have the education and understanding, do you?
You are very wrong about Goedel. Sorry. It is about what is complete and consistent. Popping up, like you do is neither complete not consistent.
If one stays on the same level (as I have, unless you can prove differently), neither his theorems nor his ontological proof apply.
I am sorry, you need some serious re-education about science and math. Web sites, regardless of the motivation of their writers, do not substitute for understanding these (very hard and complex) mathematical and physical issues.
I have the education and understanding, do you?
"It's about comnplete and consistant" google that did you?
What that means, is that at the end of the proof, there were two options, all mathematics, all logic, all computers, all DNA, etc. is either incomplete or inconsistant.
Inconsistant is by far the more upleasant option, in that case, 1+1=2 is not always true. Sometimes it's 3.
Incomplete means there are udecidable statements, like "This sentence is a lie" or "The Ultimate Truth is there is no Ultimate Truth".
Godel's Proof describes ALL of the Calculus and ALL the equations of modern physics.
What that means, is that at the end of the proof, there were two options, all mathematics, all logic, all computers, all DNA, etc. is either incomplete or inconsistant.
Inconsistant is by far the more upleasant option, in that case, 1+1=2 is not always true. Sometimes it's 3.
Incomplete means there are udecidable statements, like "This sentence is a lie" or "The Ultimate Truth is there is no Ultimate Truth".
Godel's Proof describes ALL of the Calculus and ALL the equations of modern physics.
I can eat you for breakfast, pal. For starters, you have no remote clue what Godel (and Turing and Chaitin) were talking about.
It's all of physics.
It's all the equations of mathematical physics, including the Quantum Theory itself, and our "physics expert" here thinks it's about "completeness and consistancy".
Given the math of the Quantum Theory, Einstein, it's a formal mathematical proof, from Godel, that science can never ever describe the Univese. Godel's Proof puts an end to Physics.
Given the math of the Quantum Theory, Einstein, it's a formal mathematical proof, from Godel, that science can never ever describe the Univese. Godel's Proof puts an end to Physics.
Hey, here's some "completeness and consistancy"..
Gödel and the End of Physics
Stephen Hawking
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without
it, we would stagnate. Gödel's theorem ensured there would always be
a job for mathematicians.
http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/news/20030308news/StephenHawking20
030308.htm
On the intelligibility of the universe and the notions of
simplicity, complexity and irreducibility
Gregory Chaitin, IBM Research Division
Well, if you believe in quantum physics, then Nature plays dice, and
that generates complexity, an infinite amount of it, for example, as
frozen accidents, mutations that are preserved in our DNA. So at
this time most scientists would bet that the universe has infinite
complexity, like O does. But then the world is incomprehensible, or
at least a large part of it will always remain so, the accidental
part, all those frozen accidents, the contingent part.
On the Intelligibility of the Universe
Gregory J. Chaitin: "At the time of its discovery, Kurt Gödel's
incompleteness theorem was a great shock and caused much uncertainty
and depression among mathematicians sensitive to foundational
issues, since it seemed to pull the rug out from under mathematical
certainty, objectivity, and rigor. Also, its proof was considered to
be extremely difficult and recondite. With the passage of time the
situation has been reversed. A great many different proofs of
Gödel's theorem are now known, and the result is now considered easy
to prove and almost obvious: It is equivalent to the unsolvability
of the halting problem..."
Goedel's Theorem and Information
Gödel and the End of Physics
Stephen Hawking
Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate
theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I
used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now
glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end,
and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without
it, we would stagnate. Gödel's theorem ensured there would always be
a job for mathematicians.
http://www.physics.sfasu.edu/astro/news/20030308news/StephenHawking20
030308.htm
On the intelligibility of the universe and the notions of
simplicity, complexity and irreducibility
Gregory Chaitin, IBM Research Division
Well, if you believe in quantum physics, then Nature plays dice, and
that generates complexity, an infinite amount of it, for example, as
frozen accidents, mutations that are preserved in our DNA. So at
this time most scientists would bet that the universe has infinite
complexity, like O does. But then the world is incomprehensible, or
at least a large part of it will always remain so, the accidental
part, all those frozen accidents, the contingent part.
On the Intelligibility of the Universe
Gregory J. Chaitin: "At the time of its discovery, Kurt Gödel's
incompleteness theorem was a great shock and caused much uncertainty
and depression among mathematicians sensitive to foundational
issues, since it seemed to pull the rug out from under mathematical
certainty, objectivity, and rigor. Also, its proof was considered to
be extremely difficult and recondite. With the passage of time the
situation has been reversed. A great many different proofs of
Gödel's theorem are now known, and the result is now considered easy
to prove and almost obvious: It is equivalent to the unsolvability
of the halting problem..."
Goedel's Theorem and Information