Hunter and Apollo discussing on logic (2023 rec) @tohno.whatsoever

Added: 2026-05-09

[00:00:00]That's like the basis of like a what a lot of people talk about when they talk about logical pluralism.

[00:00:06]>> Yeah. So you'd say that like there's basically like a distinction in the the object reference of both you could say investigative studies um regarding classical logic and nonclassical logic and even linear logic more specifically.

[00:00:20]>> Yeah. Yeah.

[00:00:22]Um how do you hash out like basically how a theory is more probable or the most probable theory nerve epistemology?

[00:00:30]>> Um well I would go by the idea of of analytical strength. Uh that's a term that originates from the mathematic and logic space. This is how a lot of these logics came to be. That's actually how modality like modal logic and deontic logic were created. Um the structure of what we call the structure of proof is whatever is more apt to reality and more structurally sound and versatile is generally what we will call a stronger system. For example, transreal numbers or transreal mathematics >> hello is like the standard like extended real line.

[00:01:17]Mhm. Yeah. So what would be the evidential virtues for like basically determining whether an evidence or proof or a particular proposition is structurally sound from whether it is not structurally sound? Like what would be the evidential virtues?

[00:01:29]>> I I I would I would assume and I would state generally that what we would determine as stronger and more evidentially sound is whatever is more versatile and more applicable to reality overall.

[00:01:46]It's kind of like a measure of like consistency whether it is consistent with more occasions than reality.

[00:01:51]>> Yeah, it's the same. It's literally the same exact idea in mathematics. It is just like it's a >> And when you're talking about consistency, you're talking about like logical consistency.

[00:02:00]>> Yeah. It's like it's like an it's both an empirical and a logical consistency.

[00:02:05]It's depending. So like it's kind of like a neopositivist account of like evidence whereas like both logic and like evirical evidence are going to be the two major and only bars for like evidential virtues or >> evidentially determining some proposition. Yeah, >> that's the basis of uh information ontology. Actually exactly what you just said is the basis of where we go off of for information ontology.

[00:02:26]>> Uh what how do you feel about like explanatory virtues and abductive reasoning? I think I both of those are valid within like because I I value linear logic as the most structural logic and because both of those things can be soundly recreated into different logical systems. I think they're both valid ways to both argue and to regain proof for a topic.

[00:02:50]>> Cure disease and world.

[00:02:51]>> Oh, wait one second. I was like a bit lost for a moment. I was looking at the chat. What were you saying? Yes, >> I was saying that um like abductive reasoning.

[00:03:01]>> Yo, what it do? What it do?

[00:03:03]>> Are you talking to me?

[00:03:07]>> Oh [ __ ] Yo, suck.

[00:03:10]>> What did you say?

[00:03:10]>> Oh, so basically you kind of reason as a whole, right?

[00:03:15]>> Yeah.

[00:03:16]>> You just said I couldn't hear you for a second.

[00:03:19]>> Seems to be the case that you endorsed like virtue.

[00:03:28]Um yeah, I would say so it's a probable conclusion from what you already know.

[00:03:33]Uh so any so that's a standard thing that abductive reasoning is the basis of constructive proof. So I would accept it as a as a standard of proof and an explanatory virtue in pretty much every field that you could argue it for unless there is. Um, >> speaking of explanatory virtues, how do you feel about like Akam's razor simplicity or parsimony?

[00:03:56]>> I I do think simplicity, I think that the razor is applicable, but like like with all razors and like the Sean Sander for example, razors are of course referential. They're a based they're a case-toase basis where you must be there must be a some sort of bar or reason to why you're applying it. For example, if you're talking about something that's highly complicated and and there is reason for it to need to be complicated, then trying to use a razor against it may or may not be possible or correct to do so.

[00:04:31]>> Mhm.

[00:04:32]>> But >> well, yeah. Yeah, it's going to be Yeah.

[00:04:34]So, I think aam doesn't really apply to like linguistical intricacy, which is language. I think it applies to something. I think it applies to something which is more epistemological rather than something which is linguistic >> or something you can also use a free traer for anything that's like uh like ontology or or scientific dependency. Um that's a good place for that to be for to be used in general.

[00:04:57]>> Yeah. So like for example I would say that because a lot of persons like I was having a discussion with someone actually and he was like questionable towards the reason as to why he ought to like grant Akams razor is like a epistemically valid or sound razor in that discussion and I think that like Akam's razor is actually perfectly consistent with like one of the principles in Beijing probability that would be like the principle of indifference for example which basically goes over the fact that like for every theory are without with an absence of relevant evidence. Right? The epistemic credence should be distributed amongst all possible worlds. Meaning that would basically equalize the level of probability for that theory in comparison to any antithetical theories based on the absence of relevant evidence which you could say would >> yeah probable existentially probable uh pieces of information.

[00:05:55]>> Yeah. Um, >> yeah, something like that. Yeah, but I don't really like the usage of the word existential because I usually get like an auntic reference in mind.

[00:06:09]>> I think the actual term that people use isn't existential, but it's actually just uh like relative probability. Uh, in statistics, for example, something that is has a 0% chance of happening um isn't an impossibility. It is just a a what we call a null point probability.

[00:06:29]So it's not impossible. It's still a possible value of occurrence. Like it's the it's kind of like that situation.

[00:06:36]Oh, >> okay. And I think that the funny thing about it is that ontology kind of like it is definitely quite ofmology in >> Yeah. They are they are inherently reliant upon each other because you can't have an onlogical status without having some sort of epistemological value applied to it as well.

[00:06:54]Yeah. And I believe that like ontology as a whole is perhaps even the most I think it is the broadest field in philosophy in metaphysics >> in metaphysics particularly it is and I would say this it is the second most uh large uh second most like expansive branch within it. uh the most express expressive is just statements uh which which when I speak of statements I specifically mean semantical linguistics that is the largest branch however ontology is the second largest >> okay what do you think about like uh I'm not sure if you're familiar with like semantic externalism are you familiar with that >> hello >> what did you say was asking if you're familiar with like semantic externalism.

[00:07:50]>> Um, that's a really weird cuz I think semantics are kind of like relatively defined like colloquially and like and like so that's kind of loose but it's definitely >> Yeah, I was talking specifically about Hillary Putnham's semantic externalism argument.

[00:08:08]Can you elaborate a little bit because I may be like misremembering or I just want to clarify what we're speaking about.

[00:08:14]>> Oh yeah, sure. It's kind of like an argument for like the external world whereas Hiller Putin uses like the fact that >> nobody cares. Yo Hun, you want to debate?

[00:08:22]>> By the fact that >> by the fact that they're going to be extrudal things which helps like fixes the meaning of like >> you being a minor doesn't change anything.

[00:08:35]Yo, Huntsy, you want to debate?

[00:08:40]>> Yo, Hunt, you want to debate?

[00:08:43]>> Hunt, you want to debate?

[00:08:45]>> You want to debate?

[00:08:47]>> Hunt, you want to debate?

[00:08:51]>> You want to debate?

[00:08:52]>> Hold up your focus. Say, "Are you retarded?"

[00:08:55]>> Yo, Apollo, shut up, [ __ ] >> Don't tell him to shut up, [ __ ] Shut the [ __ ] up, >> boy. I beat the bricks out, you dumbass, [ __ ] Shut the [ __ ] up. with you ass [ __ ] man >> that shitty ass music.

[00:09:11]>> Who is this [ __ ] with peanut butter titties with that shitty ass mic [ __ ] >> Back to what I was saying. Yeah, saying I can't just sit, >> bro. What is he? Yo, I'm going to be talking over you the entire time. like like the reason >> the the reason that I think I agree with is very important here.

[00:09:33]>> I see fire. I see fire. I see fire.

[00:09:37]Fire. Fire.

[00:09:39]>> At least >> I'm not sure whether to say it is a >> fire >> ass [ __ ] I >> I think it's a valid point to make about semantical reference. That's like the best way I can put it.

[00:09:58]>> Yeah, focus. You can debate Hunter after. That's if Hunter is interested.

[00:10:01]But you don't run things.

[00:10:03]>> I don't I don't debate people who I view as toxic or if I just simply don't like them. You have to interest me as a person and to be someone that I feel like I have conversation with to debate you in the first place.

[00:10:13]>> Bro, you got a whole ass reputation for being a pedophile, bro. Like, what the [ __ ] Why does so many [ __ ] know you for this?

[00:10:20]>> I don't care.

[00:10:20]>> [ __ ] you talking about I'm a pedophile, [ __ ] What the [ __ ] You're a weirdo.

[00:10:24]>> Like, I don't care. I'm a 20-year-old who owns a business and is living my life peacefully. I don't really care that much.

[00:10:31]>> What you say? Living your life with >> that. Still doesn't change the fact that you're a weirdo.

[00:10:34]>> Living my life who's the same as me.

[00:10:40]>> But okay. Anyways, >> I just You're a weirdo. Strange.

[00:10:45]>> P. You're living your life peacefully with like w with with underage children.

[00:10:49]How does it feel? How does it feel?

[00:10:51]>> That [ __ ] crazy.

[00:11:17]Heat. Heat.

[00:11:32]opinion on uh like infinite variable >> and I'm specifically talking about like how much you know about statistics and how it relates to modality.

[00:11:48]>> Apollo died.

[00:11:56]Yo, actually, >> how do I on time [ __ ] out?

[00:12:11]>> On time if I'm out.

[00:12:13]>> Yeah. How do I on time?

[00:12:15]>> You said on time. It's quite easy.

[00:12:24]Mama pizza.

[00:12:28]>> I don't know what's happening. So, while this is >> happen shut your pedophile ass up, >> where is my son? Apollo.

[00:12:41]>> Damn.

[00:12:50]>> You're my son.

[00:12:52]>> Who is this [ __ ] My my biggest my biggest empower >> bro like u n you don't remember me bro it's been like uh one years ago >> you are my powerpollo you're my power son >> how do I unttime out [ __ ] >> give me a Apollo in Apollo right now. Right now Marco, do you want to debate? Oh, >> who is that?

[00:13:49]>> Oh, you speaking.

[00:13:52]>> Yeah, I don't know who you are. Who are you?

[00:13:54]>> That's me talking. You want to debate?

[00:13:57]>> Okay, but who is me? What's your [ __ ] name?

[00:13:59]>> It's Glock 9.

[00:14:03]>> It don't matter what my name is, cuz you want to debate.

[00:14:06]>> No.

[00:14:07]>> Hey, Destruction. Destruction.

[00:14:09]>> Yo, what's up?

[00:14:12]>> This [ __ ] scary as hell. What the [ __ ] with you, [ __ ] >> Why don't you want to debate me? Cuz I >> You unted it.

[00:14:19]>> Yeah, >> cuz you what?

[00:14:20]>> I do.

[00:14:21]>> Cuz I don't care to. I'm on my day off at >> Cuz you don't care to scare anybody.

[00:14:25]>> Freick about this [ __ ] scared as hell.

[00:14:28]Wrong [ __ ] >> Mm. Whoever the [ __ ] that is.