community service org; exploring / helping others explore the limits of the conscious control of physical reality through ARGs. play well, and enjoy your game.
Joined April 2016
- Tweets29.2K
- Following2.4K
- Followers1.5K
- Likes35.2K
The coin toss makes the responsibility especially clear.
Choosing to delegate a decision to a procedure is itself a decision. The coin determines which outcome follows under the chosen procedure. It does not assume responsibility for choosing that procedure.
The same applies
and standards. But continuing to invoke them, particularly after their assumptions become visible, is itself part of the adjudicative activity.
This exposes a distinction between two kinds of justification:
Accountable justification: “Under these admitted rules, this
we construct a relational distinction, adjudicate it, and then attribute the resulting predicate to an object as though the object supplied the distinction independently of our construction and adjudication of it. But im just some fuckin retard if I say it.
I don't knwo how many days its been i think 2 or three since problem 30 entered the consideration not sure since magic ladder final proof was written shit I've stull not even published that because this fuckin problem 30 bullhsif hahahha
formal provability and absolute objective truth are not interchangeable terms. Treating them as interchangeable manufactures a demand that the proof never undertook to satisfy.
Axioms and definitions make the formal meaning available.
Isomorphism exist between the descriptions not the totality of some object described provably. Hahhaha
Nothing can prove TO YOU what you cant recognize as admissible truth without you having the ability to recognize it as such, you are either its living objection, or its living proof by experince. And experince itself cant be extended to continuum as an objective claim. FREE WILL
Yes I am, in fact, talking to myself (maybe I always am?)
these accepted standards must be applied consistently even when the subject of examination is the foundation of distinction, the adjudicator, or the act of objection itself.
Consequently, an objection that hypothesizes a describable condition prior to all distinction already employs the operation it purports to precede.
This does not assert that nothing exists beyond the distinction. It establishes that describing such an outside necessarily
The critical point is that relational consistency cannot be rejected as a standard while continuing to rely on it to formulate a meaningful rejection.
That is the foundational claim you're making.
An objection must be presented to an adjudicator. An experience must be represented to become evidence. A proof must be interpreted or checked according to admissible rules.
And when the adjudicator turns those rules into objects of examination, the