If you say so. By the way, I’d avoid using the JTB model as your baseline model for knowledge. It’s a bit outdated at this point.

It's not clear to me what the psychiatrists position on meaning actually is. He says that it's a human construct; does that mean that we invented it? He later says that it's irrelevant after prescribing that the patient use his intuitions alone to resolve the issue. Why give him advice on how to resolve the issue if it's irrelevant? Is the psychiatrist really a nihilist with respect to meaning or merely a relativist and an intuitionist.

I think you're very apt to point out that it's not surprising that our intuitions will often contradict each other. The solution is clearly that we can't rely on intuitions as foundational truths. If two intuitions contradict each other then at least one of them must be unreliable.

Does that mean that we are epistemically (as opposed to metaphysically) hopeless with respect to meaning? Well only if we accept that intuitions are the only candidate for foundational knowledge about meaning. In this piece the phrase "feelings and intuitions" is used but I think that they're importantly different. One can have an intuition that A is true and also a different intuition which logically implies that A is false. But a feeling is actually nothing like a belief in this respect. Feelings can't contradict each other in this way. They can be inconsistent in the sense that yesterday I was sad and today I'm happy. They can even be inconsistent in what once made me happy may one day make me sad, but there is no actual contradiction here.

I would argue that it is only through examining what feels meaningful to us that we can learn what is really at root meaningful to us. To the extent that our beliefs about what is meaningful to us are dependent upon other beliefs then they're going to be dependent on those other beliefs in specific ways and knowing in which ways they are dependent upon other beliefs will help us to further abstract those beliefs away and get closer to the root of what is meaningful to us.

I would differentiate what is meaningful from what is good generally speaking and say that meaning is a specific type of good. To the argument about instrumental vs intrinsic good I would say that I think we both agree that there are instrumental goods and I think we both know what we're talking about when we use that term. Could it be that all goods are instrumental? Not unless you believe that there is a never ending infinite chain of good things. Since I find that implausible I have to say that there probably are goods which are not instrumental and I would call those intrinsic goods.

Now are the good and the meaningful specifically "human constructions". I'm not sure I know exactly what that means but let's suppose that they are. Does knowing that make a difference? Perhaps what is meaningful to me is purely a product of the culture I was raised in. So what? If that's really true then that means that fundamentally the type of entity that I am is culturally determined. Does that make it any less relevant? If so, why?

> RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL

Nope, regardless of whether RL == SL, due to the difference in my implementation.

> It now allows for ties.

For now....I might change it again!

> It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”

I don't think "just" is appropriate here, as the truth value is a function of the implementation. Barring a singular, conclusive/deterministic definition, it is subjective.

Regardless: ternary (and other kinds) of logic exists, it does not require your agreement or approval.

RL = both A and B if RL ≠ SL

All you’ve done is change the definition of RL.

RL is no longer “singular leader.”

It now allows for ties.

RL = SL or tied racers

Therefore, RL = both A and B

A is still RL or not RL

B is still RL or not RL

It’s just solved differently with your new definition of RL. Now the answer is just true instead of false, which of course is allowed by “RL or not RL.”

If I interpret what you've meant correctly then you can't have truth unless you have more than a single party that to agrees to it?

> The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.

Ok then:

RL = both A and B.

You are thus incorrect.

Nah, this doesn’t create a third option. It’s actually a good example of my point.

The particle is here or it is not.

We don’t know where the particle is located, but it is here or not here.

P = Particle

X = Location

P = X or Not X

I am not sure what you mean by that.

The definition of RL? If that’s what you mean, it doesn’t matter. Define it however you want.

It could change the result but it will never change:

A = RL or not RL

B = RL or not RL

Give me another definition. I’ll solve it.

Well that's weird.

Who decides on the categorization algorithm implementation? Can there be only one?

Keep reading. I solve for that scenario.

Both are then false, i.e., not RL.

A ≠ RL

B ≠ RL

RL = not A or B

> We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.

What if they're tied?

[removed]

No.

So, no, even in your example we know the answer must be true or false.

I will use RL for Race Leader.

From context, we know you’re defining RL as

> singular leader.

A will be Person 1.

B will be Person 2.

> If A = singular leader, then A = RL

> If B = singular leader, then B = RL

> If A ≠ singular leader, then A ≠ RL

> If B ≠ singular leader, then B ≠ RL

A is either the singular leader or he is not, right?

Same goes for B.

(We know neither are singular leader because they are tied, but put that aside for now. Let’s pretend we don’t know they’re tied.)

I’ll use SL for singular leader now.

In other words:

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL

And we know our definition of RL that RL is SL.

> RL = SL

If

> RL = SL

> A = SL or not SL

> B = SL or not SL

Then

> A = RL or not RL

> B = RL or not RL

We have now proven that it is either true or false that A is RL and that it is either true or false that B is RL.

And for fun, we can go ahead solve the problem here, since you told us they are tied and that tied ≠ SL.

A ≠ SL

B ≠ SL

RL = SL

A ≠ RL

B ≠ RL

Therefore,

A = RL is False

A ≠ RL is True

B = RL is False

B ≠ RL is True

RL = not A or B

(aka RL = not A and not B)

Quantum physics has to deal with this problem because of the issue of observation of basic particles. To observe an event you have to use a constant stream of colliding particles. To see a cup of tea on the table, the photons have to hit the cup and reflect into your eye. But what if the cup was so small or the photon is so big, that when they collide the position and velocity of the cup has already changed way before the photon comes back to the retina? This is a fundamental problem in quantum interactions as the particles used to observe are at a comparable size to the particles observed. In other words, it's hard to say if there is a way to firmly determine positions of small particles (at least for me, as I'm not a physicist), so that is your prime candidate in nature for the third option.

That’s.. not it.😐

[removed]

Nothing is true. I assert that this is a sound and well-reasoned article.

I would argue that your third option looks like a set of statements that could be interpreted as "having a dog" and further sets of interpretations for those statements... and further sets for those and so on ad infinitum. In the end you'd have sets within sets containing the whole universe to which you are now asked the question "is the universe true or not?" To which I would say, does a creature inside of the whole of existence have the capacity to define if such things are even applicable at that level of magnitude? What is the difference between a true and a false universe that would make the term relevant?

So you care about the Earth because it's pretty? When you say you don't care about anything I think perhaps you mean you don't care about anything in the moral sense but you do care about some things in a broader sense.

It was a joke on the other commentary and on the fact tthat it was downvoted so much... Of course animals are mourning...

You say what you want to say, child, we'll say what we want to.

Simply because you don't understand what's communicated?

Doesn't mean it ain't there.

I find your normative system interesting and useful. But, as I have said, I also find it incomplete, inadequate and/or internally too static ("descriptive") to express agency, a vital aspect of morality. As I see it, to adequately describe moraluty we need to allow for individual moral agency potent enough by chance or choice to escape and even to re-define the normativity of the group/of groups. This seems especially so if we are to root morality in the underlying evolution of sentient, conscious and ultimately intelligent being, evolution itself being necessarily dynamically open ended. I will stop here. Thank you for the exchange.

> We already know the latter.

Actually you don't - that's what I meant by: "...in which case, a virtual answer may be created and injected into "reality"".

If the data in question is streaming values of a variable that toggles between True/False (or, something else entirely, like the name of a person), the value varies over time, and, sometimes there is no value even at base level reality. For example, take something like: Race Leader - if two people are tied for first place, there is no singular leader - in this case, reality itself is NULL.