Abyss

@clarionrox @nelsonalmeida @FlavioBolsonaro Porra, aí é foda. Tá errado, assume, cacete. Vai imitar a teimosia de todos aqueles que você passou anos criticando?

@nelsonalmeida @FlavioBolsonaro

Daqui a pouco volto aqui para falar um pouco mais sobre a reunião na Casa Branca.

@renatoandrade_ @memecrashes Yep. Any deeper bottom would take us too far afield. I even think the abstract structure of numbers is objective (not EXISTENT though, I’m no platonist) regardless of reality altogether. I shamelessly asked Grok to reply. I’m not quite happy, but maybe something clicks for you:

@abyssatis @memecrashes (...) But even there things start to get ~weird, according to our current knowledge. But I am glad we got to the bottom of it though 😁 (2/2)

@renatoandrade_ @memecrashes Make it a quantum microprocessor that went through a magical time travel portal and ended up beside the rock 3 billion years ago. 😅

@abyssatis @memecrashes Sorry, tree is a bad example as it is alive lol

@renatoandrade_ @memecrashes …detail is *put there by us*, rather than being there all along. Yes, we arbitrarily pick those 17 portions as our units of interest, by they *were there objectively* regardless of our pick. And it’s true that *they* couldn’t be divided into equal groups (whereas 16 could). 2/2

@renatoandrade_ @memecrashes There’s no need for it. When we delineate a portion of reality and give it a name, we are not adding anything to the objective facts: they were there fully, beforehand. Just because we choose a particular detail or arbitrary fragment to focus on, that doesn’t mean that this… 1/2

@renatoandrade_ @memecrashes No need for the things taken as units “being of the same kind”. 1 rock and 1 tree are still 2 objects. Even Batman, Andromeda and the impossible last number are 3 items I just thought of. It only matters that something CAN be a unit. Surely some 17 rocks from 3bi years ago can.

@abyssatis @memecrashes Nice argument. I wonder if 'counting' even has meaning if no life is involved though. After all, no 2 rocks are equal to classify them as two of the same thing, for instance. Maybe at the atomic level, but even that is, perhaps, an amalgamation of smaller and smaller things...

@VenetianGaucho2 Dito isso, está mais do que na hora desse hexa!

@VenetianGaucho2 Como vejo: não há realmente “método indutivo”. Há repetições de padrões que *ou são mera coincidência, ou são causadas*. Se são causadas, então tendem a persistir de fato. Se são coincidência, então não. Mas é improvável que padrões suficientemente robustos sejam coincidência.

Fã de ludopédio é a melhor prova da falibilidade do método indutivo

@renatoandrade_ @memecrashes If “17 is prime” wasn’t true before life, that *has to mean* that 17 rocks could have been disposed in equal groups of n rocks, for n > 1. Say several pairs or triplets of touching rocks, apart from each other (each group), totaling 17 rocks. Clearly, that was never possible.

@abyssatis @memecrashes I disagree. I find the first statement a stretch already.

@renatoandrade_ @memecrashes Nah. “17 is prime” was already objectively true before life came to be. Regardless even of empirical reality altogether.

@memecrashes Like all math

@RadioCorporatio @No6Nonmetal @Renevelation 😳

@abyssatis @No6Nonmetal @Renevelation within a fictional setting it wouldn't be a problem at all. fictional deities don't disprove God; they're metaphors. your choice of a golden egg laying goose isn't arbitrary it's indicative or your belief in the value of gold and wealth which is your God.

I am probably not smarter than Isaac Newton. But I do have vastly more information at my disposal than Isaac Newton meaning I am more informed than him and can make a more informed verdict than him. Did Isaac Newton ever provide a argument or evidence for God? No so it's moot.

@SWT_Channel Palpatine caused the death of Padme – thereby even triggering Anakin’s visions. It was his plan all along. Hence she was medically well, but lost the WILL to live: “will”, in Star Wars, means Force related. She wasn’t depressed, but quite glad about her kids and hopeful.

What Star Wars opinion you'll defend like this? I'll start:

@vurp2001 @Tsar_Martyr …DEFINITION, existence is material and spatial: that *wouldn’t* mean that I don’t believe that “there are souls in spiritual Heaven”; it would just mean that, even if there ARE such souls, I don’t CLASSIFY them as “existent”. People rarely notice this kind of blunder. 2/2

@vurp2001 @Tsar_Martyr I’m just trying to be precise. What I believe is that, *as a matter of fact*, abstract objects don’t exist. But I do NOT think that they don’t exist *by definition*, as if only concrete objects could COUNT as “existent”. That distinction matters. Say I believed that, BY… 1/2

The smartest atheists are in two camps The “morality doesn’t exist” atheists And The “Christianity is the best moral system” atheists

@vurp2001 @Tsar_Martyr I did get carried away, guilty as charged lol. But I answered your questions too. No, existence doesn’t need (by definition at least) to be concrete (so material, space-time-ly). And I don’t think abstractions (like numbers) EXIST – but I do think they *can* be objective.

@abyssatis @Tsar_Martyr You're 7 steps ahead bro! haha. I'm literally just asking how you use the word 'exist'. Not specially about morality yet. More just if existence requires time/space/matter or if you consider abstract concepts to exist?

@vurp2001 @Tsar_Martyr Ok, that can’t be answered shortly. And I ended up writing in depth, so here it is:

@abyssatis @Tsar_Martyr Thanks. By not exist do you mean doesn't have matter etc? And is an abstract concept?

@vurp2001 @Tsar_Martyr A set of categorical imperatives aimed at promoting “the good” and preventing “bad outcomes”/“evil”, where “good” and “bad” tend to be cashed out in terms of collective “flourishing” (pleasure) and “suffering” (pain). That’s the rough core of it, however theories may vary.

@abyssatis @Tsar_Martyr How do you define morality?

@somajoe69 @Tsar_Martyr But that’s NOT the claim that “Christian morality is the worst”, but the different claim that “FOR ME, personally, Christian morality is the worst – even though it might be great for others and, ADMITTEDLY, my taste is *not* objectively better than theirs: THEY ARE NOT WRONG”.

@abyssatis @Tsar_Martyr Subjectively ( as it is a morality statement ) my moral view is that Christians version of morality is horrible. As morality varies mostly by geography and upbringing it shows that objective morality indeed does not exist.

@vurp2001 @Tsar_Martyr Me, for one. But I do so explicitly. The contention, in my view correct, is that many (even most) atheists claim to embrace a “subjective morality” – but that *is* tantamount to no morality at all. Morality is conceptually objective. It either imposes itself, or it’s nothing.

@Tsar_Martyr Never heard an atheist claim that morality does not exist!? Do you have any examples of this?

@somajoe69 @Tsar_Martyr Without objective morality, you can’t really say that Christian subjective morality is “absolutely one of the worst”. Objectively, all moralities are on equal footing. If you’re going to deny objective morality, you gotta own its consequences. (Amoral atheist here btw).

@Tsar_Martyr You forgot the third : objective morality does not exist, morality does and the Christian subjective morality is absofuckinglutely one of the worst moral frameworks ever conceived