Jump to content

Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q530: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From LithoGraphica
← Older edit
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
14,473 edits
m fitting action (truth value)
Reversedragon (talk | contribs)
Bureaucrats, Conference pass, Interface administrators, Arts-aligned editors, Crimson-aligned editors, Violet-aligned editors, Administrators
14,473 edits
historically accurate (truth value)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
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) / 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) ==

Latest revision as of 19:52, 5 April 2026

Main entry

  1. truth value (top level category) / non-binary truth value

Binary truth values

  1. formal logic
  2. binary truth value -> sub-case of: non-binary truth value.
  3. True / TRUE / T -> formal logic or boolean value
  4. False / FALSE / F -> formal logic or boolean value

Non-binary truth values

  1. non-binary logic -> the concept of a system of proposition-based logic which doesn't combine propositions based on binary True or False answers and yet does have propositions and logical operators. propositions are given "truthy", "falsy", or "unknown" 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.

Rating sheet truth values

  1. communication rating level / work rating code
  2. U / Unknown -> highly implies "probably not false" but doesn't state it
  3. G / Good
  4. NG / Not Good
  5. (communication rating level)
  6. (communication rating level)
  7. N/A / Not Applicable
  8. E / Excepted

Morality

Kantianism and similar

  1. fitting action (truth value; Kantianism) [1] / virtuous individual action
  2. unfitting action (truth value; Kantianism) / vicious individual action

Consequentialism and similar

  1. produces value (truth value; consequentialism)
  2. does not produce value (truth value; consequentialism)

Freedom

  1. promotes freedom (truth value) / authentic self-expression that is not harmful
  2. does not promote freedom (truth value) / unique self-expression that is harmful

Habermas

  1. promotes non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)
  2. destroys non-hierarchical consensus (truth value; Habermas)

Historical materialism

Factual accuracy

  1. historically accurate (truth value) / historically accurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations
  2. historically inaccurate (truth value) / historically inaccurate statement within the bounds of specified population or populations

Red-orange ideology classification system

  1. promotes global socialist transition (truth value; meta-Marxism)
  2. destroys global socialism (truth value; meta-Marxism)

Truth values in programming

Lisp

  1. empty set (set theory) / ∅ / {} / void set / size-zero set
  2. non-empty set (set theory)

Truth values in mathematics

Fuzzy logic

  1. 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.
  2. fuzzy set / set with membership defined by fuzzy logic values -> a fuzzy set is a lot like any set, but its membership uses a 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.
    I'm thinking. I think if you threw these into a Dedekind cut, you'd have to define what each number in the set is 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 n+i and doesn't do multiples of i.

Ideologies or fields

  • HAS / Enlightenment rationalism
  • STM / formal logic
  • STM / programming languages
  • MX / non-binary logic
Retrieved from "https://research.moraleconomy.au/index.php?title=Ontology_talk:9k/RD/Q530&oldid=41851"