Relativity of morality

When SELF steps away from the 4 off logic outputs one can analyse what has been processed more fully.

SELF being separate from these logic outputs but having AWARENESS of them.

All 4 off logic outputs should be taken seriously.

There I fixed it for you now explain wtf do you mean with this?

I mean that adopting 0,0 and 1, 1 logic on top of 0,1 and 1,0 logic is fine...ones belief systems are still secure.

There is no definitive carnal proof that any of the 4 off logic outputs are true or not.....so why consider only half the outputs?

0,1...1,0 philosophy is incomplete is it not?

Just looking in... this is pseudo-math (not real math).

The 0 and 1 states are undefined, unless you want to define "truth" in a testable way. If you are saying "True things are true"... that is a meaningless tautology. If you are saying that "True things are false" (and you do seem to be saying this is a possibility) than that is just silly.

You could be defining a mapping function between two vector spaces. In that case what is true in one space is false in another space. Maybe that is interesting...

I can do the math for you. But if your initial assumptions are ill-defined or meaningless, then the results will be nonsense. That's how math works.

The fear of 0,0...1,1 logic needs to be overcome.

There appears to be 2 off truths and 2 off lies in the overall logic output.

The 4 off overlaid logic outputs template is sound.

All sciences are interconnected.

If you can discover anything from the math then please share it.

The math you are suggesting is trivial (it is elementary linear algebra).

You are giving the equivalent of 1 + 1 = 2. You are failing to show how this relates to morality, or anything else in reality.

That may be your view however profound principles explained in very simple terms are best don’t you think?

The 4 off logic outputs do have a mysterious output because if Good is Good and is fixed and Bad is Bad and is fixed then they are not relative to each other.

It is meaningless unless you provide a definition of what "good" and "bad" is. Anytime you use math to define something in the real world, you need to precisely define the terms. Otherwise it is garbage in and garbage out.

Let's say I have a [b]vector space[/b] where I define "good" and "bad" this way. (A vector space is a mathematical term that can be thought of as being governed by a set of rules ... it is a little more complicated than that of course, but I am not going to give you a full course in linear algebra here.).

- Anything that has has a vowel as the last letter in the singular form of the most commonly used English word is good. (I suppose I could be more precise and specify American speakers... etc, but I think this is good enough to make the point.

- Anything that that has a consonant as the last letter (with the same conditions) is bad.

In this vector space life is good and death is bad. A baby is good (yeah 'y' counts) and a dog is bad.

I could then define an opposite vector space... where death is good and life is bad.

In that case the mapping function you define... where good changes to bad and bad changes to good... would be the way to transform objects from one vector space to the other.

If you don't define the terms "good" and "bad", then the transformation is meaningless in the real world.

The definition of good and bad is not the important aspect here..

Acknowledgement of the 4 off potential logic outputs is however.

If one is only prepared to acknowledge 2 off of these outputs then one does not have the complete picture.As I say 2 off outputs cannot be true.

The overall formula is also related to consciousness.

There is also a controlling factor to it all which includes energy,
;movement and resistance.

The definition of good and bad...like definitive carnal proof..... is a "red herring" therefore.

All we know is that if the 2 off logic output statements i.e. good is bad and bad is good are false then there is potentially an undefined (mysterious) output due to good being good and bad being bad. We don't know what this difference between good and bad is.

I have already shown you how mathematically the [0,1] and [1,0] states can be true as part of a mapping function (for example). Another example is an electronic logic circuit. Google "JK gate" for a basic example.

Your math is incorrect.

My logic and math are correct.... 0,1 or 1,0 logic is not the same as 0,0 or 1,1 logic.As I say there is an unknown factor (difference) between o,0 and 1,1 logic (good and bad).Something is either on or off or + or -ve or hot or cold ...etc etc ...They are opposite and different. Good is not Bad and Bad is not Good therefore.

All 4 off logic outputs need to be considered as I say.

Forget carnal proof and definitions of good and bad.

There is the potential for TRUTH and LIES then.

This is funny.... I was just thinking about your problem.

Did you google "JK gate"? The funny part about this is that you are them every time you press a key on your keyboard. With every keypress you are using the math that you are denying.

I don't have a problem at all.

I sit outside of and I'm AWARE of the 4 off logic outputs. I'm AWARE of the fact that there are 2 off truths and 2 off lies.

I don't deny SELF you see.

If you ever want to do real work in mathematics or digital electronic circuits... I guess you are going to have to deny SELF.

As long as you don't plan to do anything real with this, I suppose you can hold onto whatever you want.

With all due respect...that is the crux of the issue though isn't it.

As your knowledge of consciousness types appears to be limited you are also limited on how you debate.

You are not a machine my friend but do you think like one?

You need to become more AWARE.

No thanks.

Thanks for the discussions anyway.