Reality is shared perception. You don’t yet know the absolute truth of reality because mankind doesn’t understand it. We understand what we think, that’s all there is to it.
It’s still not up to you to decide it. Mathematics is irrelevant in semantics, as I said one can go through your posts word for word and you completely glossed over the relevance of subtext and implications. Doesn’t mean I’ll bother to do so though, however when you create a reality, as in a shared perception, of your stance on something, then that is your stance on it.
It just boils down to you not expressing yourself properly if that wasn’t what you meant by it, although another possibility is that you don’t even realise that’s what you’ve implied.
All he did was conflate mathematical logic to mean logical conclusions. Logical conclusions are a method to determine something, that’s all it is. It’s used in math, sure. Doesn’t mean mathematical logic is the only method to logically conclude something though.
Actually, it’s the “literal meaning” of a word, known as the semantic of a word, the iconic relationship between the form and the concept, that is used to compile sentences into logical proposition on which you can use what you seem to call “mathematical logic”.
And stop saying subtext and implication, it doesn’t sound good.
Again, that isn’t more math than slapping an equal sign to it. Also, that is grammar when you combine it with others. You’re deviating from semantics now.
I’ll do what I want, but thank you for your valuable advice. I’ll take it to heart, for sure.
90k bolt plus freezing flurry os hardly small damage.
Whaazz basically has to hold CoS for as long as possible although I did expect them to just pop it and try to win on ruins. Almost certainly chas thought whaazz was safe and they agreed not to.
not really, also your “created reality” is nothing else than subjective opinion
you can’t call collection of subjective opinions a fact or reality, it’s not
just because there is general opinion that Einstein did poorly in Math doesn’t mean he did poorly in Math
over and over people tell me that I apologize Lock’s design as if it was my stance on it, and when I explicitely state it’s not my stance on it and they still keep thinking it’s my stance, then how exactly is that my fault and how exactly is something my stance, when I explicitely state the exact opposite?
No.
Well it doesn’t for sure, because mathematical logic isn’t “method” in first place.
Logical conclusion means it’s conclusion following “mathematical” logic (or just “logic” if you want, logic is field in mathematics).
If it doesn’t follow logic rules, it’s not logical conclusion.
