CAUSALITY & LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES Cause and effect are not universal, but relative. On the other hand, the universality of cause and effect is only relative, not absolute, because wherever it is (universally) RELATIVELY ADAPTABLE So something is relative, which does not mean that it is doubtful whether it is right...
Ideal is something considered perfect. Perfection is not a final step but achieved through a process. Realism is necessary, meaning in its implementation, it is adjusted according to capability. Don't forget, even if something is done within one's capabilities, if it lacks utility or doesn't precisely support idealism, it becomes...
yes true, not the job for "lesswrong", but job for ours to reflect "lesswrong" by being patient , less hasty
okay now perhaps we will discuss,
i want to explain the foundation of cause and effect, namely logical consequences, which are not just the commonly known logical consequences that fall into the category of cause and effect.
instead, these are logical consequences that are truly separate from cause and effect because they form the basis.
That's the essential information. if it's not fully understood, it's okay, but at least you grasp that there are 'logical consequences' different from the commonly known ones.
we can breakdown our discussion in days or weeks, it is okay to clarify the ambiguous for days, since lesswrong not a get smart quick schemes.
it's a gradual process. otherwise, this is really "hugewrong" not just lesswrong
"less of this" is true less reply as it should be
you can try to point on specific paragraph or line to discuss it?
if you know the "doesn't make sense" part of it, then you must be able to show us where those parts.
otherwise there must be wrong communication between us, i don't know where side
any way objectively, you're not speaking for yourself, thanks for your comment
Downvoted without explanation, is not a rebuttal at all, not intellectual disagreement but subjective haste 👎
RELATIVE ANSWER
The yes or no answer is multi-dimensional. Not only from a certain point of view, but broadly there are certain aspects of achievement and certain failures, so that from a time point of view, currently there are two answers in different contexts.
YES, because many people use calculus mathematics to calculate changes
NO, because mathematics cannot yet reconcile general relativity & quantum mechanics
When you ask for a definitive answer, I also have to answer objectively. And that's a close to objective answer. Why?
In a level of causality. It has a degree of functionality that gives different results (between yes or no)
So in this case I answered objectively.
DEFINITE ANSWER
UNLESS THE QUESTION ABOUT ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL TRUTH, there has to be a definite answer (YES OR NO)
There must be as part of a process, but basically it can be solved in the sense that mathematic essential in physics for formulating theories, making predictions, and quantifying relationships between variables
But not for philosophy in the sense that philosophy mostly abstract, not objective
Somehow philosophy must have its own formula, a rational & objective statement(s), so there won't be a gap in between philosophy to both (mathematic & physics)
Please don't just downvote based on karma or other values, as this is still something new. Downvoting might not be beneficial for ongoing discussions where we could potentially inspire each other without stopping in unnecessary mid-discussion.
Feel free to discuss for days; it's better than rushing to judgment.
CAUSALITY & LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
Cause and effect are not universal, but relative.
On the other hand, the universality of cause and effect is only relative, not absolute, because wherever it is (universally)
RELATIVELY ADAPTABLE
So something is relative, which does not mean that it is doubtful whether it is right or wrong, but that something is relative, which means you need to be aware of how to adapt to it which is relative
RELATIVE DIVERSITY
That's why relative does not mean there are no limits, but rather its flexibility emphasizes the diversity of possibilities that are still within limits
LIMIT OF RELATIVE
This also means that there is a relative range of how far the relative cannot exceed a certain... (read 246 more words →)
Ideal is something considered perfect.
Perfection is not a final step but achieved through a process.
Realism is necessary, meaning in its implementation, it is adjusted according to capability.
Don't forget, even if something is done within one's capabilities, if it lacks utility or doesn't precisely support idealism, it becomes futile.
So, having a dream doesn't mean giving up because you think your dream is too high. It might be because it's less realistic and less pragmatic.
Don't shatter your dreams. Find alternative ways that are easier, realistic according to capabilities, and pragmatic that yield tangible results, to achieve the ideal hope.
Because your hope might fail not because your dream is too high but because the approach... (read more)
As I realize, this community seems trapped in downvoting, making it easy to judge without prioritizing intellectual arguments, except for limited responses or subjective criticisms.
It's the evident from the overly sensitive downvoting due to capslock ...
It's the evident from the non-objective response, 'Speaking for myself? you're talking to yourself'? (You're not talking to yourself)
It's the evident from merely protesting without pinpointing the objection, indicating subjective dissatisfaction that cannot be understood objectively at all?
Is it evident from seeking justification like someono said" 'others will downvote'? (how strong provoking)
I think 'lesswrong' reflects 'tolerance' (a bit wrong). Or 'hugewrong' (lots of subjectivity, little objectivity)?
Well, I think there's a change; apparently, it only discusses common things... (read more)