Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[eagerSnake]

There's a lovely little concept that wraps this up nicely, which is falsifiability. Accountant is making a series of unfalsifiable claims.

The problem is that falsifiability is a part of rational/scientific thinking, which is of a lower hiearchy than the correct path. So we can say that the existence of an argument about the correct path invalidates points based on falsifiability.

This kind of statement is worthless because it's impossible to verify, falsify or produce proof or evidence for or against. It's basically just flapping your lips at nothing.

So you're allowed to use falsifiability to argue points you want to but we aren't.

Do you seriously not understand why people sometimes find you grating to argue with?

Do you think you're going to convince people that you're correct when you're using tactics like this, that we have no reason to view as valid?

^ implosion with the good argument as always

[Killthestory]

uh oh the circle jerks coming back.

[Shaziro]

If they are meant to never be wrong, then they are poorly designed, because they ended up just being unfalsifiable in some cases, and blatantly wrong in others.

This statement is categorically incorrect.

Prove my evidence false using your own evidence, rather than making assertions without evidence.

You say that my arguments are poorly designed.

My arguments are designed to be never wrong. They are never wrong. Hence they are not poorly designed.

You say that my arguments are blatantly wrong.

My arguments are designed to be never wrong. Hence they are never wrong. Hence they cannot be blatantly wrong.

This is kindergarten stuff shaz

You aren't proving anything or providing any evidence, you're making assertions and begging the question. Bridges can be designed to hold 100 cars, but then fail to do so due to poor design. You are a piss poor designer of your arguments.

Literally take your second blurb there, "My arguments are designed to be never wrong" is a premise, that's acceptable. "They are never wrong", however, is not a premise. It is a statement which requires proof, evidence. "Hence they cannot be blatantly wrong" is drawing a conclusion from an assertion without any evidence, and from something which has proven to be untrue.

Is the reason you're afraid to use logic in your arguments because you know you have such a poor grasp of it, or because you know that your god delusion will get shattered if you have to?

[Accountant]

everything requires evidence

no

yes

no

y

no

NOT AN ANSWER.

won't change facts

[Accountant]

So you're allowed to use falsifiability to argue points you want to but we aren't.

Do you seriously not understand why people sometimes find you grating to argue with?

Do you think you're going to convince people that you're correct when you're using tactics like this, that we have no reason to view as valid?

Yes, that is the case. Why is this so? Well, in my view, two things that are fundamentally different should be treated differently. Arguments that "may be correct but have yet to be proven right" would be treated as wrong until proof is provided. But a different type of argument, that of an argument which is "certainly correct", is correct, and therefore no proof is needed. Should proof be given, it would merely be a "redundant confirmation of the correctness of the argument".

Secondly, well, it's not my job to understand other people. Personally, I think that if they were more correct, they would find me a lot less grating. Thus, my suggested course of action for this ailment would be to change your mind.

Thirdly, whether or not I convince people that I am correct is irrelevant. Allow me to explain. Suppose a company hires a mascot to promote their sales. They pay the mascot $2000 a month to dress up in a mascot costume and promote the company. This mascot now exists on two planes. On the first plane, they given the function "dress up in a costume and promote the company". On the second plane, they given the function "make money for the company equivalent to or greater than $2000 a month by means of promoting sales". It is for the second plane that the executives of the company have chosen to hire them. However, for the mascot themselves, the only function that they care about is the first plane. In other words, there is no need for the mascot to care about whether or not their promotion is actually enough to boost company sales by $2000 or more a month. The only thing the mascot needs to worry about is "doing their job right" and they will allow the company executives to ensure that the company makes money.

Let us now apply this metaphor to my current function. I am an educator within utopia. Therefore, on the first plane, my function is "to spread knowledge and instruct others strictly on the correct path". On the second plane, my function is "to ensure that the utopia is spread across the world as quickly as possible". It is for the re-educators to ensure that the people of the world comply with the correct path. I am merely a sort of messenger or missionary who seeks to accomplish their first-plane function as efficiently as possible. As everyone here knows about the correct path, I think that my function has been performed sufficiently.

This is akin to the ability to turn into a cog within a giant machine of "utopia". Thus, we see that there is a split between terminal and instrumental value. As a "mere cog", I would only care about my instrumental goal. This reflects the argument that I made about how soldiers should only follow orders and not worry about anything else.

[Accountant]

You aren't proving anything or providing any evidence, you're making assertions and begging the question. Bridges can be designed to hold 100 cars, but then fail to do so due to poor design. You are a piss poor designer of your arguments.

Literally take your second blurb there, "My arguments are designed to be never wrong" is a premise, that's acceptable. "They are never wrong", however, is not a premise. It is a statement which requires proof, evidence. "Hence they cannot be blatantly wrong" is drawing a conclusion from an assertion without any evidence, and from something which has proven to be untrue.

Is the reason you're afraid to use logic in your arguments because you know you have such a poor grasp of it, or because you know that your god delusion will get shattered if you have to?

Okay, let me show you the breakdown step by step.

1) Bridge A is designed to hold up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.
2) Bridge A holds up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.
3) Bridge A is well designed.

Thus:

1) My arguments are designed to never be wrong.
2) My arguments are never wrong.
3) My arguments are well designed.

Now, you take umbrage with assertion 2). You agree that 1) is the case, and you agree that should 1) and 2) be true, then 3) is the case. But you have not yet been convinced that 2) is the case.

Now, let us return to the bridge so I can show you why my arguments are correct.

1) Bridge A is designed to hold up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.
2) Bridge A is well designed.
3) Bridge A will certainly be able to hold up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.

Thus:

1) My arguments are designed to never be wrong.
2) My arguments are well designed.
3) My arguments are never wrong.

If you compare it like this, 2) and 3) actually prove each other. This creates a loop of circular logic.

Your next question will assuredly be thus: "isn't circular reasoning a logical fallacy? Doesn't the fact that there is circular reasoning in your logic considered a weakness of your argument(thus proving that your arguments are wrong, and shattering everything"? This is certainly an obvious point. I will therefore show you why circular logic is here not a weakness of my argument.

To understand this thoroughly, we must first understand why logical fallacies make arguments weaker. The following sequence is shown.

1) An assertion is made, but unproven.
2) The assertion is backed by logic.
3) The logic is held to be valid - hence, the assertion is proven.

Should a logical fallacy be introduced, this alternative sequence is executed instead.

1) An assertion is made, but unproven.
2) The assertion is backed by logic.
3) The logic is held to be invalid - hence, 2) is destroyed and only 1 remains.
4) All that is left is an unproven assertion.
5) The unproven assertion is considered to be untrue.

Now, this is the sequence that occurs when I carry out my arguments.

1) An assertion is made.
2) The assertion is objectively correct.
3) The assertion is further backed by logic - this is what I described in post #1829 as a "redundant confirmation of the correctness of the argument", in order to show people who do not have the eyesight required to see 2) why the assertion is correct.
4) The logic is proven to be fallacious(since circular reasoning is logically fallacious).
5) The assertion is objectively correct without the need for 3) since it is above logic.

Can you see how disconnected 2) and 3) are? By shattering 3), you are not shattering my argument. Rather, you are only shattering the "redundant confirmation of the correctness of the argument" - in fact, you are shattering the spectacles that I have given you to improve your eyesight. All you have done is shattered your own ability to see the objective correctness of the argument. The argument's objective correctness is, of course, above logic, hence it is not affected by the fact that the logic backing up the argument is fallacious. Remember, shattering a redundant part of a system means that the system still works perfectly fine.

To use another architecture metaphor, using logically fallacious reasoning to back up an argument, like I have done, is akin to building a house whose foundation is made out of paper. When you say that the logically fallacious reasoning "sinks" the argument, it's like saying "well, if your house's foundation is made out of paper, it will certainly collapse". That's reasonable. But then, I reveal that the house actually has an anti-gravity device mounted on the inside, allowing the whole thing to float into the sky without the need for a firm foundation(literally "above logic" - now the people who claim that I have no sense of humor are proven incorrect). In this case, there is no use continually criticizing the fragility of the foundation when it is clear to everyone that it is floating high in the sky and your complaints about a paper foundation are completely unfounded.

[Shaziro]

If the mascot is doing the job, but the job isn't making the company money, the company fires the mascot. Your analogy is flawed.

[Shaziro]

You aren't proving anything or providing any evidence, you're making assertions and begging the question. Bridges can be designed to hold 100 cars, but then fail to do so due to poor design. You are a piss poor designer of your arguments.

Literally take your second blurb there, "My arguments are designed to be never wrong" is a premise, that's acceptable. "They are never wrong", however, is not a premise. It is a statement which requires proof, evidence. "Hence they cannot be blatantly wrong" is drawing a conclusion from an assertion without any evidence, and from something which has proven to be untrue.

Is the reason you're afraid to use logic in your arguments because you know you have such a poor grasp of it, or because you know that your god delusion will get shattered if you have to?

Okay, let me show you the breakdown step by step.

1) Bridge A is designed to hold up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.
2) Bridge A holds up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.
3) Bridge A is well designed.

Thus:

1) My arguments are designed to never be wrong.
2) My arguments are never wrong.
3) My arguments are well designed.

Now, you take umbrage with assertion 2). You agree that 1) is the case, and you agree that should 1) and 2) be true, then 3) is the case. But you have not yet been convinced that 2) is the case.

Now, let us return to the bridge so I can show you why my arguments are correct.

1) Bridge A is designed to hold up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.
2) Bridge A is well designed.
3) Bridge A will certainly be able to hold up to 100 cars at one time without collapsing.

Thus:

1) My arguments are designed to never be wrong.
2) My arguments are well designed.
3) My arguments are never wrong.

If you compare it like this, 2) and 3) actually prove each other. This creates a loop of circular logic.

Your next question will assuredly be thus: "isn't circular reasoning a logical fallacy? Doesn't the fact that there is circular reasoning in your logic considered a weakness of your argument(thus proving that your arguments are wrong, and shattering everything"? This is certainly an obvious point. I will therefore show you why circular logic is here not a weakness of my argument.

To understand this thoroughly, we must first understand why logical fallacies make arguments weaker. The following sequence is shown.

1) An assertion is made, but unproven.
2) The assertion is backed by logic.
3) The logic is held to be valid - hence, the assertion is proven.

Should a logical fallacy be introduced, this alternative sequence is executed instead.

1) An assertion is made, but unproven.
2) The assertion is backed by logic.
3) The logic is held to be invalid - hence, 2) is destroyed and only 1 remains.
4) All that is left is an unproven assertion.
5) The unproven assertion is considered to be untrue.

Now, this is the sequence that occurs when I carry out my arguments.

1) An assertion is made.
2) The assertion is objectively correct.
3) The assertion is further backed by logic - this is what I described in post #1829 as a "redundant confirmation of the correctness of the argument", in order to show people who do not have the eyesight required to see 2) why the assertion is correct.
4) The logic is proven to be fallacious(since circular reasoning is logically fallacious).
5) The assertion is objectively correct without the need for 3) since it is above logic.

Can you see how disconnected 2) and 3) are? By shattering 3), you are not shattering my argument. Rather, you are only shattering the "redundant confirmation of the correctness of the argument" - in fact, you are shattering the spectacles that I have given you to improve your eyesight. All you have done is shattered your own ability to see the objective correctness of the argument. The argument's objective correctness is, of course, above logic, hence it is not affected by the fact that the logic backing up the argument is fallacious. Remember, shattering a redundant part of a system means that the system still works perfectly fine.

To use another architecture metaphor, using logically fallacious reasoning to back up an argument, like I have done, is akin to building a house whose foundation is made out of paper. When you say that the logically fallacious reasoning "sinks" the argument, it's like saying "well, if your house's foundation is made out of paper, it will certainly collapse". That's reasonable. But then, I reveal that the house actually has an anti-gravity device mounted on the inside, allowing the whole thing to float into the sky without the need for a firm foundation(literally "above logic" - now the people who claim that I have no sense of humor are proven incorrect). In this case, there is no use continually criticizing the fragility of the foundation when it is clear to everyone that it is floating high in the sky and your complaints about a paper foundation are completely unfounded.

I'm doing laundry before bed, and I'm gonna be busy all tomorrow most likely, but if I forget to respond to this please remind me to.

[Davsto]

If the bridge is unable to hold up to 100 cars at a time, no amount of saying it is able to will make it so.

[Accountant]

If the mascot is doing the job, but the job isn't making the company money, the company fires the mascot. Your analogy is flawed.

If the correct path wants to fire me, that's its perogative. I won't argue if I get fired for not converting enough people. I'll just do my job as I see fit.

[Accountant]

If the bridge is unable to hold up to 100 cars at a time, no amount of saying it is able to will make it so.

In utopia, the bridges are able to hold as many cars as they want.

[Not_Mafia]

If the bridge is unable to hold up to 100 cars at a time, no amount of saying it is able to will make it so.

It will if the authorities say it does, if the bridge collapses, no it didn't, don't believe your lying eyes

[Accountant]

If the bridge is unable to hold up to 100 cars at a time, no amount of saying it is able to will make it so.

It will if the authorities say it does, if the bridge collapses, no it didn't, don't believe your lying eyes

More like... the authorities will definitely say the bridge didn't collapse if it didn't, and they will only certify the bridge as being well-designed when it is. Thus, if they say it is, then you can more or less trust that it is.

[Ankamius]

what have I done...

[TheRealGin-N-Tonic]

So, I don't think people get what's going on and I can shed some light as to why both sides are right in this argument.

First off, this thread revolves around 1 thing, Accountant's Utopia, that means we set the standards to what would be considered Accountant's Utopia.

Thus,

If Accountant says it's good; it is good.
If Accountant says it's bad; it's bad.

That is how you apply a utopia standard and it is entirely dependent on what Accountant thinks is good in an a utopia.

Thus, if Accountant thinks in her Utopia that her arguments are never wrong, in Utopian standards, Accountant's arguments are indeed never wrong.

HOWEVER, a Utopian standard conflicts itself when compared to another person's view of standards; in this case being evidence-based assertions being the ones that hold weight.
It is a largely accepted assertion that evidence is needed to prove a claim in order for it to be either plausible or fact. So one could conclude that a majority of the human population uses this as their personal Utopian standard.

As we can see in this thread, we have two Utopian standards clashing, however the beauty of it is that when they clash, it disproves the other standard because they are both held as the truth.

The closest principle one could relate to this is schrodinger's cat theory as the cat is both dead or alive, Accountant's and other's Utopian theories of reason/logic are both correct and incorrect.

I fucking love this thread now

[Accountant]

If you think of this as two standards clashing, I assert that the standard that says people should be taken to paradise and live forever happily should win over the standard that says utopia is impossible and we will live in misery forever.

[TheRealGin-N-Tonic]

I'm actually thinking, ya know the Matrix, if everyone had one of those, everyone lives in a personal Utopia, everyone wins lol

[Accountant]

I'm actually thinking, ya know the Matrix, if everyone had one of those, everyone lives in a personal Utopia, everyone wins lol

"If"

[Accountant]

Everyone already has one of those! It's called imagination!

[Sesq]

If you think of this as two standards clashing, I assert that the standard that says people should be taken to paradise and live forever happily should win over the standard that says utopia is impossible and we will live in misery forever.

Your moral assertions of both places are wrong

the utopia's gonna be shit for anyone who isn't you as it directly goes against human psychology

and while the real world (the only world your wonderland shit isn't a real fuckin thing) does have misery it also has joy

if everything is always "good" you have nothing to scale off of

so you're basically saying everyone should ignore the real world and live in their own imagination...

how old are you?

[Accountant]

1) Re-education centers will adjust their psychology to fit the utopia to prevent incompatibility errors.

2) Oh, you short-sighted girl. The real world is the only

real

world, but that doesn't mean it's the only world. You're a realist. I don't mean that in the usual sense, but in the same connotation as sexist or racist. Just like a sexist discriminates against members of a certain gender, you discriminate against people who are not real or who choose not to be real. I hope that in the future you will stop this behavior.

3) Scaling off stuff is unecessary. Only real world people do that.

4) Yes, of course! Isn't your imagination far better than the real world? In that case, isn't it better to live the majority of your life there? Well, of course you'll have goals in the real world, and must set foot there to fulfil them, but when you are resting or doing mundane things, you should live in utopia, and that is also where your moral beliefs and ideas should originate from.

[Killthestory]

accountants location is so fitting it almost feels like i have stepped into wonderland

[Shaziro]

Still haven't forgotten about the big post I need to respond to, I will be getting to that. That said:

A: You didn't correct somebody calling you "she", is this an alternate acceptable pronoun to you, or should I avoid using it as well?

B: Effectively what I'm getting at is that you think you're always right, and therefore if everyone thought like you did everything would be perfect. That's pretty gross and wrong, if that's the case.

C: Preferring the real to the imaginary is nothing like sexism or racism, and the fact that you just tried to compare the two is honestly incredibly sad. Don't try to make yourself a victim because people prefer the real world to your fantasies, that isn't how that works.

D: Spending the majority of your time in your imagination means you make little to no change on the real world and are relatively unimportant in the long run, because your imagination affects you and you only. If you're willing to accept having no affect on pretty much anyone else, sure, live in your imagination.

[Accountant]

A) I actually didn't see that, since I was woozy from just waking up and therefore was kind of skimming the post. For future reference, Gin, my pronoun is "them". Well, I'm not offended by people who use the wrong pronouns, and I'm not strict on pronoun usage. What I am strict about is being meticulously correct.

B) This is an assertion without evidence. You are just saying "oh... that's gross and wrong".

C) A victim? No, no, no. Look. I don't suffer anything because Sesq is incredibly misguided. Therefore I cannot be perceived as a victim. Here is what the correct line of thought is. Why on earth do you prefer the real world to fantasy, when in the fantasy world there's no death or suffering? Do you like death or suffering?

D) Ah, that is where the useful skill of multitasking comes in. For instance I often wander along the snowy landscapes of the northern areas of paradise whilst heading down the road to buy groceries in the real world. In this manner, I am able to reap the benefits of existing in my imagination while also making an impact on the real world. It's important to make an impact because I have a few goals I want to achieve in the real world.

[Sesq]

1) Re-education centers will adjust their psychology to fit the utopia to prevent incompatibility errors.

2) Oh, you short-sighted girl. The real world is the only

real

world, but that doesn't mean it's the only world. You're a realist. I don't mean that in the usual sense, but in the same connotation as sexist or racist. Just like a sexist discriminates against members of a certain gender, you discriminate against people who are not real or who choose not to be real. I hope that in the future you will stop this behavior.

3) Scaling off stuff is unecessary. Only real world people do that.

4) Yes, of course! Isn't your imagination far better than the real world? In that case, isn't it better to live the majority of your life there? Well, of course you'll have goals in the real world, and must set foot there to fulfil them, but when you are resting or doing mundane things, you should live in utopia, and that is also where your moral beliefs and ideas should originate from.

When I say psychology, I don't mean stuff like personalities and fluctuating desires, I mean that your system is incompatibile with the very base biology in which the brain is structured upon. Our brains are not like those of say, bees or ants, we can't form societies like that.

Also, you can't discriminate against something that's not real. You can't be discriminatory towards gungans or klingons or elves.

Scaling isn't a conscious effort, it's how our brain chooses to administer chemicals in response to external stimuli.

Also no, most people would rather be doing things in the real world, where shit actually happens and they can actually effect things. For one, humans NEED social interaction to live, and if you just sit around and fantasize about ruling your own head-universe that doesn't exactly happen.