Given that recursion works in software you have Boolean logic arguments in use all the time that all terminate in a non-arbitrary manner, is there a legitimate parallel between recursion and Transcendental argumentation and/or would recursion be an example of non-vicious circularity? Can that be used to further dissect the Trilemma?
This merits its own Q&A post later this week. The short answer is yes, now that the amphiboly has been identified, recursive programming provides evidence of an empirical defeat of the Trilemma.
Two philosophers and a Zen master were walking along a garden path. They came upon a large boulder the path split around. The philosophers debated for an hour and finally decided the boulder, obstructing the harmony of the path, could not possibly exist. The Zen master patted the boulder and went on his way.
Now that you have the Veriphysics framework to expand on, I imagine that the CMTU explainer you once talked about writing has slipped lower on the priority list.
I would be very interested in seeing the Triveritas analysis of the CMTU framework if you are looking for other under-analyzed targets to demonstrate the system.
What would you suggest as an effective rhetorical response when people try to use the Trilemma?
"The Trilemma assumes every stopping point is arbitrary. But some things are self-evident. If someone asks you to prove you have hands, you show them your hands. If they insist that’s arbitrary, the fitting reply is to slap them with those “arbitrary” hands until they discover otherwise."
No. This is midwit retardery that is focused upon a performative demonstration of one's own belief rather than the truth. What does the other individual's assent matter?
The Triveritas rejects the concept of self-evidence. It's the false elevation of an axiom to evidence.
And my rhetorical response would be: Meet the Triveritas. It breaks the Trilemma.
Given that recursion works in software you have Boolean logic arguments in use all the time that all terminate in a non-arbitrary manner, is there a legitimate parallel between recursion and Transcendental argumentation and/or would recursion be an example of non-vicious circularity? Can that be used to further dissect the Trilemma?
This merits its own Q&A post later this week. The short answer is yes, now that the amphiboly has been identified, recursive programming provides evidence of an empirical defeat of the Trilemma.
I've followed the reasoning in the other posts, but this one clarified it significantly. 10/10
Two philosophers and a Zen master were walking along a garden path. They came upon a large boulder the path split around. The philosophers debated for an hour and finally decided the boulder, obstructing the harmony of the path, could not possibly exist. The Zen master patted the boulder and went on his way.
Now that you have the Veriphysics framework to expand on, I imagine that the CMTU explainer you once talked about writing has slipped lower on the priority list.
I would be very interested in seeing the Triveritas analysis of the CMTU framework if you are looking for other under-analyzed targets to demonstrate the system.
Don’t mind me, just getting some good and clean training data for myself.
Not only is the glass dark, but someone keeps putting their hand over it, claiming there's nothing to see!
What would you suggest as an effective rhetorical response when people try to use the Trilemma?
"The Trilemma assumes every stopping point is arbitrary. But some things are self-evident. If someone asks you to prove you have hands, you show them your hands. If they insist that’s arbitrary, the fitting reply is to slap them with those “arbitrary” hands until they discover otherwise."
No. This is midwit retardery that is focused upon a performative demonstration of one's own belief rather than the truth. What does the other individual's assent matter?
The Triveritas rejects the concept of self-evidence. It's the false elevation of an axiom to evidence.
And my rhetorical response would be: Meet the Triveritas. It breaks the Trilemma.
Ah, my bad. Thanks Vox.