Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q530 - Revision history

Reversedragon: truth values and necessity

2026-06-15T07:17:38Z

truth values and necessity

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:17, 15 June 2026
Line 92:		Line 92:
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/STM\|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}True and False are artifacts of dividing logic into propositions that must be categorized / True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Richard Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/STM\|Q=618\|Q2=618\|h4= truth values and necessity }} / relationship between [[EC:9k/RD/Q530\|truth values within logic]] and what is real, accurate, material, empirically attested, undeniable, or obvious / ({{9k\|RD/Q618-LogicAndWhatIsReal}})

			{{li\|I=S2/STM\|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}True and False are artifacts of dividing logic into propositions that must be categorized / True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Richard Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / There are more fields than the natural sciences that have bimodal truth values -> empirical observation: True / False. ethics: Right / Wrong. law: guilty / not guilty. Liberal-republicanism: constitutional / unconstitutional. feminism: consent / not consent. Marxism: revisionist / non-revisionist.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / There are more fields than the natural sciences that have bimodal truth values -> empirical observation: True / False. ethics: Right / Wrong. law: guilty / not guilty. Liberal-republicanism: constitutional / unconstitutional. feminism: consent / not consent. Marxism: revisionist / non-revisionist.<br/>

Reversedragon: Truth has exited domination

2026-06-02T00:35:17Z

Truth has exited domination

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:35, 2 June 2026
Line 99:		Line 99:
	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist" / "adhering to Leninism" / orange.		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist" / "adhering to Leninism" / orange.

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=HM\|Q=~~618~~}}It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality		{{li\|I=S2/HM/A\|tradition=HM\|Q=576\|Q2=576\|h4= Truth has exited domination }} / Truth breaks from domination / Truth wrests from domination / That which brings freedom from domination is True / It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV, MX onto ML, MX onto LR\|Q=618\|h4= Truth predicts human arguments }} / Objective truth is the predictive observation of reality, reached by the correct methods, which lies outside two opposing consensuses and accurately explains not just why one consensus is worth opposing but how it is that two accounts or consensuses come to oppose each other (meta-Marxism) -> holy {{censor\|shit}} I may just have solved all of politics<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV, MX onto ML, MX onto LR\|Q=618\|h4= Truth predicts human arguments }} / Objective truth is the predictive observation of reality, reached by the correct methods, which lies outside two opposing consensuses and accurately explains not just why one consensus is worth opposing but how it is that two accounts or consensuses come to oppose each other (meta-Marxism) -> holy {{censor\|shit}} I may just have solved all of politics<br/>
	like, not to be overconfident here, but I do think this is one of the single biggest problems with Liberal-republicanism. it has come to believe that "dissent" is worth something but has never come to appreciate the value of explaining where both positions come from materially (particularly in terms of two groups of people interacting as inanimate objects) in order to decide which position is truly the accurate one. you can apply the 'single consensus / dissent' test all the way around with any number of dissenters and only basically get a warring states period where everybody is fighting each other and nobody cooperates, but if you apply this test with any number of dissenters then you'll eventually get real insight into how to actually solve the problem. in theory this solves both Trotsky and Trump, although you fundamentally have to let go of "the subject", "communicative rationality", "consensuses of lived experiences" and all that.		like, not to be overconfident here, but I do think this is one of the single biggest problems with Liberal-republicanism. it has come to believe that "dissent" is worth something but has never come to appreciate the value of explaining where both positions come from materially (particularly in terms of two groups of people interacting as inanimate objects) in order to decide which position is truly the accurate one. you can apply the 'single consensus / dissent' test all the way around with any number of dissenters and only basically get a warring states period where everybody is fighting each other and nobody cooperates, but if you apply this test with any number of dissenters then you'll eventually get real insight into how to actually solve the problem. in theory this solves both Trotsky and Trump, although you fundamentally have to let go of "the subject", "communicative rationality", "consensuses of lived experiences" and all that.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol><!--

	<!--

	== Wavebuilder combinations ==		== Wavebuilder combinations ==

Reversedragon: formatting

2026-05-25T23:26:45Z

formatting

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:26, 25 May 2026
Line 2:		Line 2:
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">
	~~<!--~~ {{li\|start=y\|I=F2/~~DX\|tradition=DX~~\|Q=530\|Q2=530}} ~~-->~~		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/STM\|Q=530\|Q2=530}}[[Ontology:Q530\|truth value]] (top level category) / non-binary truth value <!-- / ({{9k\|RD/Q530}})-->
	~~</li><li value="530" class="field_geo">~~[[Ontology:Q530\|truth value]] (top level category) / non-binary truth value
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Line 78:		Line 77:
	=== Lisp ===		=== Lisp ===
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	<li class="field_geo" value="802" data-dimension="S">empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {<nowiki/>} / void set / size-zero set		<li class="field_geo" value="802" data-dimension="S">empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {<nowiki/>} / void set / size-zero set / NIL (Common Lisp)
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="803" data-dimension="S0">non-empty set (set theory)		</li><li class="field_geo" value="803" data-dimension="S0">non-empty set (set theory) / T (Common Lisp)
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Truth predicts human arguments

2026-05-15T03:33:56Z

Truth predicts human arguments

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:33, 15 May 2026
Line 19:		Line 19:
	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="783" data-dimension="S">non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on [[E:binary truth value\|binary True or False answers]] and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" [[E:non-binary truth value\|answers]] simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate and not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="783" data-dimension="S">non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on [[E:binary truth value\|binary True or False answers]] and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" [[E:non-binary truth value\|answers]] simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate and not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}second-order truth values (wavemachine logic) / non-binary logic through wildly binary logic -> if a first-order truth value is defined as as a statement being accurate or inaccurate according to some specific criterion on a simple 0/1 rating, then a second-order truth value is {{em\|a particular statement that can be true or false}} becoming a new set of truth values according to whether the statement is accurate or inaccurate in a particular situation.		{{li\|I=S1/MX\|Q=618}}second-order truth values (wavemachine logic) / non-binary logic through wildly binary logic -> if a first-order truth value is defined as as a statement being accurate or inaccurate according to some specific criterion on a simple 0/1 rating, then a second-order truth value is {{em\|a particular statement that can be true or false}} becoming a new set of truth values according to whether the statement is accurate or inaccurate in a particular situation.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 93:		Line 93:
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/STM\|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}True and False are artifacts of dividing logic into propositions that must be categorized / True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/STM\|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}True and False are artifacts of dividing logic into propositions that must be categorized / True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Richard Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / There are more fields than the natural sciences that have bimodal truth values -> empirical observation: True / False. ethics: Right / Wrong. law: guilty / not guilty. Liberal-republicanism: constitutional / unconstitutional. feminism: consent / not consent. Marxism: revisionist / non-revisionist.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / There are more fields than the natural sciences that have bimodal truth values -> empirical observation: True / False. ethics: Right / Wrong. law: guilty / not guilty. Liberal-republicanism: constitutional / unconstitutional. feminism: consent / not consent. Marxism: revisionist / non-revisionist.<br/>
	none of these are the same thing as True / False and yet they operate almost exactly the same way.		none of these are the same thing as True / False and yet they operate almost exactly the same way.

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular ~~bimodal~~ category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist", "adhering to Leninism" / orange.		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist" / "adhering to Leninism" / orange.

	{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=HM\|Q=618}}It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality		{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=HM\|Q=618}}It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|tradition=MX onto IV, MX onto ML, MX onto LR\|Q=618\|h4= Truth predicts human arguments }} / Objective truth is the predictive observation of reality, reached by the correct methods, which lies outside two opposing consensuses and accurately explains not just why one consensus is worth opposing but how it is that two accounts or consensuses come to oppose each other (meta-Marxism) -> holy {{censor\|shit}} I may just have solved all of politics<br/>
			like, not to be overconfident here, but I do think this is one of the single biggest problems with Liberal-republicanism. it has come to believe that "dissent" is worth something but has never come to appreciate the value of explaining where both positions come from materially (particularly in terms of two groups of people interacting as inanimate objects) in order to decide which position is truly the accurate one. you can apply the 'single consensus / dissent' test all the way around with any number of dissenters and only basically get a warring states period where everybody is fighting each other and nobody cooperates, but if you apply this test with any number of dissenters then you'll eventually get real insight into how to actually solve the problem. in theory this solves both Trotsky and Trump, although you fundamentally have to let go of "the subject", "communicative rationality", "consensuses of lived experiences" and all that.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas)

2026-05-14T01:36:38Z

It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 14 May 2026
Line 99:		Line 99:

	{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular bimodal category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist", "adhering to Leninism" / orange.		{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular bimodal category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist", "adhering to Leninism" / orange.

			{{li\|I=S2/A\|tradition=HM\|Q=618}}It is possible to build a model of reason specifically based on the concept of people seeking Freedom from Domination (Habermas) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action] -> this is weirdly Kantian. it's trying to be new but it feels like it's just formalizing Kant's weird concept that intuition is the same thing is logic just because we decided to apply it to morality

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: second-order truth values ; Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value

2026-05-13T23:32:29Z

second-order truth values ; Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:32, 13 May 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:

	</li><li class="field_mdem" value="783" data-dimension="S">non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on [[E:binary truth value\|binary True or False answers]] and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" [[E:non-binary truth value\|answers]] simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate and not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.		</li><li class="field_mdem" value="783" data-dimension="S">non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on [[E:binary truth value\|binary True or False answers]] and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" [[E:non-binary truth value\|answers]] simply to summarize whether they should be taken as accurate and not specifically to operate on mathematically. the combination of any particular two propositions is actually the material or concrete models inside the propositions combined together. if you "And" two models they produce a model containing both processes only if both processes were given a "truthy" label of being accurate to reality or whatever is being modeled. if you "Or" two models you are putting them in superposition and saying you think either model could happen as far as you know but you're not sure whether one or both of them could happen. for instance, you could "And" together classical physics and quantum physics to represent both of them happening and one stacking up to the other, or you could "Or" specific results of a chemical reaction into a superposition of most probable and least probable results before the reaction happens and is measured. for another example, you could "And" together a model with a truth value of "some occurrence", like "Cats have white fur" and a model that is "true" like "Cats can have partially-expressed patterns" to produce a piecewise statement that all-white cats can produce kittens with spots but the possibilities for other colors of cat are different.

			{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}second-order truth values (wavemachine logic) / non-binary logic through wildly binary logic -> if a first-order truth value is defined as as a statement being accurate or inaccurate according to some specific criterion on a simple 0/1 rating, then a second-order truth value is {{em\|a particular statement that can be true or false}} becoming a new set of truth values according to whether the statement is accurate or inaccurate in a particular situation.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 93:		Line 95:
	{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/STM\|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}True and False are artifacts of dividing logic into propositions that must be categorized / True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.		{{li\|start=y\|I=S2/STM\|tradition=STM / formal logic, HAS / analytic philosophy\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}True and False are artifacts of dividing logic into propositions that must be categorized / True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions / True and False are byproducts of the existence of reason and do not originally exist in nature before there is a person or instrument to create ontological models of nature (Rorty) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty] -> this is fine. this is just an acknowledgement that systems of logic are something that have to be created and have made-up rules in order to function for interpreting the world. which is accurate. anyone who's ever seen Gödel's incompleteness theorem will realize it has to be the case on some level that logic or reasoning is made up in order to be designed for its task.

	{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}There are more fields than the natural sciences that have bimodal truth values -> empirical observation: True / False. ethics: Right / Wrong. law: guilty / not guilty. Liberal-republicanism: constitutional / unconstitutional. feminism: consent / not consent. Marxism: revisionist / non-revisionist.<br/>		{{li\|I=S2/MX\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / There are more fields than the natural sciences that have bimodal truth values -> empirical observation: True / False. ethics: Right / Wrong. law: guilty / not guilty. Liberal-republicanism: constitutional / unconstitutional. feminism: consent / not consent. Marxism: revisionist / non-revisionist.<br/>
	none of these are the same thing as True / False and yet they operate almost exactly the same way.		none of these are the same thing as True / False and yet they operate almost exactly the same way.

			{{li\|I=S2/IV\|Q=618}}Several fields have bimodal truth values / "Trotskyist" is a truth value / Trotskyist versus not-Trotskyist is a bimodal truth value -> this just fully hit me after reading some stuff by Alan Woods and David North. different authors use different language to describe it, but Trotskyists do really like to categorize Marxist statements as either fitting or not fitting a particular bimodal category of "Trotskyist" / "Leninist", "adhering to Leninism" / orange.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions

2026-05-13T23:20:34Z

True and False are artifacts of the existence of propositions

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 </li><li class="field_geo" value="751">fuzzy set / set with membership defined by fuzzy logic values  ->  a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a [[:Category:Non-binary truth values ontology|non-binary truth value]] in the form of a rational number from 0 to 1. it's like one big circle with a bunch of numbers or Algebras around it where every object is a particular distance from the center to the outside. and of course, where the exact position around the circle doesn't matter, the circle is for flavor.<br />
 I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set <em>is</em> first. one intuitive way to do it is to draw a real number line, with a ramp of numbers rising off it so you start at zero membership and go all the way up to one or higher if you want. and I think that would be complex numbers; I think one way to define a fuzzy set is to say basically each integer in a fuzzy set is a complex number that only goes up to <var>n</var>+<var>i</var> and doesn't do multiples of <var>i</var>.
 </li></ol>

Reversedragon: historically accurate (truth value)

2026-04-05T19:52:20Z

historically accurate (truth value)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 5 April 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:

	== Morality ==		== Morality ==

			=== Kantianism and similar ===
			<ol class="hue clean terse">
			</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="580" data-dimension="S">fitting action (truth value; Kantianism) [https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/consequentialism-beyond-action] / virtuous individual action
			</li><li class="field_nations" value="579" data-dimension="S">unfitting action (truth value; Kantianism) / vicious individual action
			</li></ol>

			=== Consequentialism and similar ===
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="~~580~~" data-dimension="S">~~fitting action~~ (truth value) ~~[https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/consequentialism-beyond-action] / virtuous individual action~~		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="553" data-dimension="S">produces value (truth value; consequentialism)
	</li><li class="field_nations" value="~~579~~" data-dimension="S">~~unfitting action~~ (truth value) ~~/ vicious individual action~~		</li><li class="field_nations" value="558" data-dimension="S">does not produce value (truth value; consequentialism)
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Freedom ==		== Freedom ==
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="576" data-dimension="S">promotes freedom (truth value)		</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="576" data-dimension="S">promotes freedom (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful
	</li><li class="field_nations" value="575" data-dimension="S">does not promote freedom (truth value)		</li><li class="field_nations" value="575" data-dimension="S">does not promote freedom (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
	=== Habermas ===		=== Habermas ===
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	~~</li>~~<li class="field_exstruct" value="555" data-dimension="S">promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)		<li class="field_exstruct" value="555" data-dimension="S">promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)
	</li><li class="field_nations" value="557" data-dimension="S">destroys non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)		</li><li class="field_nations" value="557" data-dimension="S">destroys non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Red-orange ~~truth values~~ ==		== Historical materialism ==

			=== Factual accuracy ===
			<ol class="hue clean terse">
			<li class="field_ML" value="603" data-dimension="S">historically accurate (truth value) / historically accurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations
			</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="604" data-dimension="S">historically inaccurate (truth value) / historically inaccurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations
			</li></ol>

			=== Red-orange ideology classification system ===
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	~~</li>~~<li class="field_ML" value="554" data-dimension="S">promotes global socialist transition (truth value; meta-Marxism)		<li class="field_ML" value="554" data-dimension="S">promotes global socialist transition (truth value; meta-Marxism)
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="556" data-dimension="S">destroys global socialism (truth value; meta-Marxism)		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="556" data-dimension="S">destroys global socialism (truth value; meta-Marxism)
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Lisp ~~truth values~~ ==		== Truth values in programming ==

			=== Lisp ===
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	<li class="field_geo" value="802" data-dimension="S">empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {<nowiki/>} / void set / size-zero set		<li class="field_geo" value="802" data-dimension="S">empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {<nowiki/>} / void set / size-zero set
Line 62:		Line 80:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Fuzzy logic ==		== Truth values in mathematics ==
			=== Fuzzy logic ===
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">

	</li><li class="field_geo" value="750">fuzzy logic -> proposition-based logic which uses real numbers from 0 to 1. I don't think this is the only way to do non-binary logic, but it may be one of the easiest ones to explain and demonstrate.		</li><li class="field_geo" value="750">fuzzy logic -> proposition-based logic which uses real numbers from 0 to 1. I don't think this is the only way to do non-binary logic, but it may be one of the easiest ones to explain and demonstrate.

	</li><li class="field_geo" value="751">fuzzy set / set with membership defined by fuzzy logic values -> a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a [[:Category:Non-binary truth values ontology\|non-binary truth value]] in the form of a rational number from 0 to 1. it's like one big circle with a bunch of numbers or Algebras around it where every object is a particular distance from the center to the outside. and of course, where the exact position around the circle doesn't matter, the circle is for flavor.<br />		</li><li class="field_geo" value="751">fuzzy set / set with membership defined by fuzzy logic values -> a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a [[:Category:Non-binary truth values ontology\|non-binary truth value]] in the form of a rational number from 0 to 1. it's like one big circle with a bunch of numbers or Algebras around it where every object is a particular distance from the center to the outside. and of course, where the exact position around the circle doesn't matter, the circle is for flavor.<br />
	I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set <em>is</em> first. one intuitive way to do it is to draw a real number line, with a ramp of numbers rising off it so you start at zero membership and go all the way up to one or higher if you want. and I think that would be complex numbers; I think one way to define a fuzzy set is to say basically each integer in a fuzzy set is a complex number that only goes up to <var>n</var>+<var>i</var> and doesn't do multiples of <var>i</var>.		I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set <em>is</em> first. one intuitive way to do it is to draw a real number line, with a ramp of numbers rising off it so you start at zero membership and go all the way up to one or higher if you want. and I think that would be complex numbers; I think one way to define a fuzzy set is to say basically each integer in a fuzzy set is a complex number that only goes up to <var>n</var>+<var>i</var> and doesn't do multiples of <var>i</var>.

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Line 86:		Line 102:
	</ol>		</ol>
	-->		-->
			* HAS / Enlightenment rationalism
			* STM / formal logic
			* STM / programming languages
			* MX / non-binary logic

	<!--== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==		<!--== Full title for bookmarks (optional) ==

Reversedragon: link

2026-04-01T09:12:05Z

link

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:12, 1 April 2026
Line 35:		Line 35:
	== Morality ==		== Morality ==
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="580" data-dimension="S">fitting action (truth value) / virtuous individual action		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="580" data-dimension="S">fitting action (truth value) [https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/consequentialism-beyond-action] / virtuous individual action
	</li><li class="field_nations" value="579" data-dimension="S">unfitting action (truth value) / vicious individual action		</li><li class="field_nations" value="579" data-dimension="S">unfitting action (truth value) / vicious individual action
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: fitting action (truth value)

2026-04-01T08:33:21Z

fitting action (truth value)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:33, 1 April 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="782" data-dimension="Z">formal logic		</li><li class="field_geo" value="782" data-dimension="Z">formal logic
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="539">[[Ontology:Q549\|binary truth value]] -> sub-case of: non-binary truth value.		</li><li class="field_geo" value="539">[[Ontology:Q549\|binary truth value]] -> sub-case of: non-binary truth value.
			</li><li class="field_geo" value="541">[[Ontology:Q541\|True]] / TRUE / T -> formal logic or boolean value
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="540">[[Ontology:Q540\|False]] / FALSE / F -> formal logic or boolean value		</li><li class="field_geo" value="540">[[Ontology:Q540\|False]] / FALSE / F -> formal logic or boolean value
	~~</li><li class="field_geo" value="541">[[Ontology:Q541\|True]] / TRUE / T -> formal logic or boolean value~~
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Line 25:		Line 25:
	</li><li class="field_internal" value="542">communication rating level / work rating code		</li><li class="field_internal" value="542">communication rating level / work rating code
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="543">[[Ontology:Q543\|U / Unknown]] -> highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it		</li><li class="field_geo" value="543">[[Ontology:Q543\|U / Unknown]] -> highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it
			</li><li class="field_geo" value="545">[[Ontology:Q545\|G / Good]]
	</li><li class="field_geo" value="544">[[Ontology:Q544\|NG / Not Good]]		</li><li class="field_geo" value="544">[[Ontology:Q544\|NG / Not Good]]
	~~</li><li class="field_geo" value="545">[[Ontology:Q545\|G / Good]]~~
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="546">(communication rating level)		</li><li class="number_empty" value="546">(communication rating level)
	</li><li class="number_empty" value="547">(communication rating level)		</li><li class="number_empty" value="547">(communication rating level)
Line 33:		Line 33:
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

	== Habermas ==		== Morality ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">
			</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="580" data-dimension="S">fitting action (truth value) / virtuous individual action
			</li><li class="field_nations" value="579" data-dimension="S">unfitting action (truth value) / vicious individual action
			</li></ol>

			== Freedom ==
			<ol class="hue clean terse">
			</li><li class="field_anarchy" value="576" data-dimension="S">promotes freedom (truth value)
			</li><li class="field_nations" value="575" data-dimension="S">does not promote freedom (truth value)
			</li></ol>
			=== Habermas ===
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="555" data-dimension="S">promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)		</li><li class="field_exstruct" value="555" data-dimension="S">promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)
Line 41:		Line 52:
	== Red-orange truth values ==		== Red-orange truth values ==
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse">
	</li><li class="~~field_trotsky~~" value="554" data-dimension="S">promotes global socialist transition (truth value; meta-Marxism)		</li><li class="field_ML" value="554" data-dimension="S">promotes global socialist transition (truth value; meta-Marxism)
	</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="556" data-dimension="S">destroys global socialism (truth value; meta-Marxism)		</li><li class="field_trotsky" value="556" data-dimension="S">destroys global socialism (truth value; meta-Marxism)
	</li></ol>		</li></ol>