[spam][crazy][fiction][random] Non-Canon MCBoss Spinoffs

Wed Sep 13 13:10:56 PDT 2023

mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:14 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
holding them together is an interesting space because then, according
to A, you will be deriving contradictions, but according to B, the
result should be true.

maybe shows how logic might work --

starts getting psychological, all this inferring of falsehoods. we
don't want to be assuming falsehoods from this, much better if we can
figure out what things are false that we're inferring and stop
assuming them -- maybe --

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:14 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
how can you say something that expands to falsehoods is true ???? this
is not safe to do.

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:15 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
maybe the idea of contextual truth can apply here. like "rocks are
big" applies when in the land of big rocks.

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:16 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
we want things that cause contradictions to be false
because people very readily act on true information

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:17 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
> A: An exhaustive list of all relevant universal truths combined with
> this statement produces a contradiction.
>
> B: Statement A is true. Alternatively, a restatement of A where it is
> referenced by letter.

thinking of goal: we want things that produce contradictions to be false.

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:18 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
[why did you find the biggest and most problematic contradiction

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:22 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
thinking of concern:
A) it can be true that a statement implies falsehoods
B) such a statement can correctly refer to itself

then goal: we want things that imply falsehoods to be false, because
true information is acted on

we can then infer
C) statements that imply falsehoods are false
D) statements that refer to themselves regarding implying falsehoods
are themselves false

it is then confusing to consider that a false statement can truly
state that it implies falsehoods. unfortunately, we're now deriving
that this true information can be the only thing it states, and it is
still false.

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:23 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
this interpretation of godel might be something near "we can't let
statements truly talk about their own falseness because people might
--

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:24 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
so what happens then if A and B are adjac--

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:24 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
unfortunately we have formed this approach to handle a cognitive issue
stemming from a thought

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:24 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
possibly

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:25 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
"who mind controlled godel's axiom and forced it to be unprovable

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:28 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
basically the thought request is to defend modus tolens, which can be fair

if we defend modus tolens (which reduces the area to select options
from so makes the challenge harder, but is interesting and feels nice)
then we have a situation where
A: this statement is false
could be interpreted such that A is false, and A is expressing something true
we might say that "this statement is false" is always false whereas
"that statement is false" can be true.

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:29 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
so how would we interpret:
A (false): this statement is false
B (true): A is false

how do we hold them together?
well it is pretty clear, since A is false, that "A and B" is also false.
similarly "not(A) and B" is true.

if we want to evaluate that we're kind of fudging it -- [describing A
as [but it may not need to be a fudge

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:30 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
------
anyway, so a way to interpret self referential statements could be to
express them elsewise

test: this statement is false
evaluate:
A: this statement is false
B: (copy of A without recursion) A is false

B is true
A is false

somehow i'm imagining doing this multiple times and that it could be
an infinite number of times for some things

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:32 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
it makes one form of truth where:
- statements referring to a part of themselves have a lengthy trueness
starting with "false" where each subsequent element of the trueness is
equivalent to the trueness of a new statement that replaces self
references with references to the actual statement

kind of like executing computer code

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:34 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
i just really think it doens't work for all situations

i'm curious about the modus tolens change. the logic that backed this
related to what is actually inverted when some things are held
constant in a system of logic.

modus tolens assumes countering of the assumptions involved, kind of,
i'm kind of imagining if some of those are the logic system, then
countering them gets multidimensional into other systems of logic, but
is still solvable and often (maybe always?) could be made to stay in
the same system of logic [given we can describe arbitrary things in
words, it seems to make sense there would be one system of logic where
things do stay in that same system]

it seems interesting to consider expanding modus tolens but also
addressing the worry about false expansions -- this is basically the
purpose of holding those two things together

[it's notable that when something is true, and we put it in a system
where falsehoods infer, this is a serious problem with a logic]
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:36 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
okay:
"proof is equivalent to truth. this sentence is unprovable."

if we apply modus tolens to this, right now i'm thinking i'd like the
modus tolens to not imply that "this sentence is unprovable" is true
or false, but rather to imply that the whole expanded sentence is
false --

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:41 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
-------
idea: what if we say we can't prove statements, we can only prove the
combination of statements with the axioms of the logic
idea: what if we considered that self-referential statements cannot be
immediately proven
idea: what if we considered that statements that discuss provability
cannot be immediately proven

the first idea seems reasonable, helps simplify concepts a little

"this statement's expansion with the axioms of logic proves as false"
or simpler
"this statement's expansion with the axioms of logic is false"

this kind of narrows down on the modus tolens issue. the statement
would be true, except that assuming it in the logic produces
falsehoods, which is bad. we want our logic to function, ie that true
things produce true things.
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:44 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
so, why?
why do falsehoods stem from it?

i guess basically what i've done here is i've shifted some of the concerns
"proof equals truth" can be interpreted in different ways
and i've focused on the expansion of statements

i'm holding some the idea that the statement is true
if we wanted to counter godel, we might try to prove this.

maybe that's when copying it to another statement that refers to it is helpful.

of course, i'm getting quite confused regarding the new influence of
what is useful to quickly consider. it's certainly safer to only
consider clearly true things ...

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:46 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
so i went in a bit, not learning more, just spammin'
and it seemed like it was addressable, but the ways i found
interesting to approach it involved considering it as tr[... basically
involved producing new logic rules for the situation, which weren't
initially simple and correct enough for my mind to accept continuing
to consider it

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:47 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
maybe, {it sounds like there is a logic that is different from
intuitive logic that works for recursive situations. the human world
is a recursive situation: we make assertions about ourselves.}

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:55 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
A: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any
relevant truths.
B: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any
relevant truths.
C: "A" is false.
D: "A" is true.

so we could imagine that universal logic where the world is made of
hard and fast events and matter, and consider infinite multiverses
where all the different things happen, and consider true things to
hold true in every universe, whereas false things do not.

A statement then would be an expression of patterns in the universe. A
description of them.

"A" is saying, roughly, that if it is considered as true across the
universe, in a correct logic, then false inferences can be inferred
from it.

"B" is repeating A, which avoids self-reference and provides for the
different parts of its truth to be considered separately.

Is "A" true? is it possible for it to be true? is it false?
If "A" is false or true, what does that mean? what is the meaning of
false or true in a correct logic? We've stated this. True things
describe all parts of every universe. False things have an exception.

I might argue the correctness of a logic only relates to its impact on
what actually happens in the real world. So the truth of this
statement would then rely on its accurate impact on the larger world.
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 12:56 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
We could make a little more real by considering an honest agent
present in the universe.

This agent might say: "I lie."

Is this a true statement? [in reality, every being lies, because we
are not omniscient but speak concisely]

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:01 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
A: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any
relevant truths in a correct logic.
B: A contradiction stems from "A" if held as true adjacent to any
relevant truths in a correct logic.

i guess we need to theorize a correct logic
given the domain involves self-referential statements, considering
just normal events in the world is not sufficient. we'd need to
consider statements in the world. [considering just statements is not
sufficient, either, we'd need to consider self-referential statements
that relate to the world]
one can derive that if only what happens in the world matters, then
what kind of self-referential logic is used doesn't matter -- what
matters is that the parts of the logic that relate to the world are
consistent.
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:01 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
here we could infer that the truth of the self-referential portion of
an expression is relevant only for its utility to derive the truths of
other parts.

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:03 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
one might consider a logic where self-references elide away if unused

the statement "this sentence is true" and "this sentence is false"
might both elide to empty statements (or true ones)

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:05 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
this gives an opposing view to "this sentence is unprovable" being
false because a contradiction is inferred when paired with the axioms
of logic
instead, we now evaluate it as true, because the unused self-reference
elides away, leaving only the axioms of logic

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:07 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
the end question is, is math solvable, it looks like a question for
computer science or something with the eliding view, because
determining if something elides away --

is there a way to may it not possible to elide it away?
what kind of patterns arise with what is real?

"this sentence is unprovable, and whether or not rocks are big in land
R is equivalent to this sentence's provability?"

Add star  mailbombbin<mailbombbin at gmail.com>	Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 1:08 PM
To: "Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many"
<gmkarl at gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
quite similar to dividing by 0
basically the sentence can be true or false or not-a-sentence and this
is orthogonal to the size of the rocks