Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Liar detector: Olcott is a Liar !!!
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2024 22:09:30 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <664466c952b695175f05c8cea64f7c924d5a704a@i2pn2.org>
References: <v644pn$29t4h$3@dont-email.me> <v6cboo$3v83p$2@dont-email.me>
 <83dab358cd413bbb48dd3791890d1b526b019e40@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cdk5$3viun$1@dont-email.me>
 <c320c5c5458ccce375c8dc694316c1c031332095@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cehc$3viun$2@dont-email.me>
 <ba1adc0f48c6d2930356b072815d6e17d9ccc9ad@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cfv7$13k$1@dont-email.me>
 <024d687a8f7fb00a6ff0ba883ccae61ba70003db@i2pn2.org>
 <v6chbl$13k$3@dont-email.me>
 <8a0dbc38d05e8cafcb53a1ddbc3605983b67e051@i2pn2.org>
 <v6ciqt$d3v$1@dont-email.me>
 <5c04052a3d139ac587f72bec322cc04efdb07c32@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cju3$kfo$1@dont-email.me>
 <c1e33e8d17881ae66899ec78d7efddfba2562f35@i2pn2.org>
 <v6clg1$mkt$1@dont-email.me>
 <8b091927da50f703dd9d207d52d92ab97ec2493c@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cnc7$1464$1@dont-email.me>
 <9e0236bdb651dd66913d34b86632f93083d979dd@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cp7n$1b3m$1@dont-email.me>
 <a69529067cfb8e871b5697670fcacb8108a37775@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cr50$1b3m$3@dont-email.me>
 <9ad4affff8bd629ab9da41cc6d76090d1d789087@i2pn2.org>
 <v6cs7o$1otr$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 02:09:30 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2381981"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v6cs7o$1otr$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 8522
Lines: 168

On 7/6/24 9:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/6/2024 8:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/6/24 9:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/6/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/6/24 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/6/2024 7:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/6/24 8:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 6:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 7:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 6:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 7:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 6:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 6:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 5:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 5:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/2024 4:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/6/24 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That requires HHH to report on what itself does 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before it does this,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus exactly the same you you never needing to buy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groceries once
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you decide that you will do this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, because HHH is deterministic in behavior, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It cannot report on the effect of what it did before 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it does this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise we are back to you never needing to buy 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groceries as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soon as you decide to go buy them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It MUST report on what it DOES. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. That means that it cannot report on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect of something that it has not yet done.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But all of its behavior comes into existance at once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree with sequence, selection and iteration?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Might as well say that you don't believe in arithmetic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as your rebuttal to 2 + 3 = 5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The program executes in sequence, but the BEHAVIOR, which 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution REVEALS is instantaneously created by 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determinism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH must report on what it must do at a specific point in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace of its simulation of DDD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH cannot report on the effect of what it would do before it
>>>>>>>>>>> does this the same way that you cannot say that you don't need
>>>>>>>>>>> groceries at the point in time that you would otherwise go to
>>>>>>>>>>> the store to buy them.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But it MUST, so you are just admitting that no such decider 
>>>>>>>>>> can exist.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am pointing out that you cannot correctly say that you don't
>>>>>>>>> need groceries until AFTER you go to the store and buy them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, because I am a willful being, and thus until I do, I am 
>>>>>>>> not forced to do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pretending that everything happens all at once does not overcome
>>>>>>>>> this. Trying to get away with pretending that sequence of sequence
>>>>>>>>> selection and iteration does not exist is foolish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, because the program is deterministic, and thus all its 
>>>>>>>> future behavior has be fixed and determined, and thus established.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) You determine that you need groceries
>>>>>>>>> (b) You report this need
>>>>>>>>> (c) then you go to the store to buy them
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (a) HHH determines that it needs to abort DDD
>>>>>>>>> (b) HHH reports this this need (as text before the action)
>>>>>>>>> (c) then HHH aborts DDD
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And I, being willful, am not FORCED to do that sequence. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *It seems that you are simply too much of a liar*
>>>>>>> You can already have the groceries that you just ran out
>>>>>>> of before thinking that you need to go to the store or
>>>>>>> going to the store.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Your problem seems to be that you are too much of a liar*
>>>>>
>>>>> You go to the store and buy groceries
>>>>> then you lie and say that you need groceries
>>>>> then you see that you bought the wrong ones
>>>>>
>>>>> You say that you need groceries without checking.
>>>>> then you buy the wrong groceries because you did not check
>>>>> then you see that you bought the wrong ones
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is all just Red Herring, as I am not a program.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You provided rhetoric instead of reasoning sufficiently
>>> proving that you are a liar.
>>>
>>>  >>>>> And I, being willful, am not FORCED to do that sequence.
>>>
>>> Meaning that you can already have the groceries before you
>>> went to the store to get them.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I have will and can choose what I do.
>>
> 
> That this includes the logically impossible proves that
> your are a liar. I truly hope that this does not condemn
> you to Hell.

And you know what I meant but chose to TWIST the words like you always do.

YOU are the liar, and I fear it is too late for you and you mind to 
badly seared for you to see the light. You have braidwashed and 
Gas-light yourself into utter stupidity and can't manage a decient 
argument, but just claims that have no real backing, that you can't even 
explain.

> 
> I was able to greatly improve the quality of my words by
> you always being stuck in rebuttal mode. That you are are
> stuck in rebuttal mode against the verified facts could get
> you condemned to Hell, yet only if you separately exist.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========