# Spiritus Mundi **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 26, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273 "2003-04-26T05:09:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/81 "2003-04-26T17:31:08Z")
For what it’s worth, I participated in the GIT thread, and I concur that **TVAA** is a (apparently) a freaking moron. As other people have pointed out, his arguments basically consist of hand-waving and insulting people. It’s pretty clear that he has little or no understanding of the concepts he is batting around. Honestly, I have a hard time believing that **TVAA** seriously believes the crap he is spewing. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/82 "2003-04-26T17:40:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\*Please reread the bolded part until comrpehension sets in. Or until you pass out from hunger, whichever comes first. You wanted to derive an ethical system from logic. Under most logical systems, a contradiction can be used to prove all things. That makea it a little difficult for you to use a contradiction to reliably derive an ethos. \*\* Where, exactly, was I using a contradiction to reliably derive an ethos? What contradiction are you talking about? > [@](#): > > \*\*I simply asked you a question. **Do you consider ethics to be a sub-discipline of physics?** Now, I could also point out the sheer ignorance required to pretend that all ethical systems are necessarily descriptive rather than prescriptive . . . In fact, I think I just did. You consistently rage about as if your understanding of a word is the only understanding possible. You consistently look like a fool when you do so. \*\* If they’re prescriptive – if they define things as “good” or “evil” and then say “don’t do evil things; do good things”, then they can say whatever we want them to say. The things that determine what we want then determine the ethical systems. Ethical systems that aren’t evolutionarily adaptive will cease to exist – regardless of whether an ethical system is meant to describe a property of the world or merely define “proper” behavior, it will eventually develop significance in regards to the world. > [@](#): > > **How pathetic do you have to be to keep going back to an argument over who said “the label doesn’t matter” first. :wally** But you keep claiming that I’m talking about the label. Then you deny that you’re misrepresenting arguments… > [@](#): > > \*\*Yes, because your assertion was not “creatures exist with specific ethical systems”. really, how hard is to to understand that in order to derive a logical result you have to provide an argument that **_actually has that result as the conclusion_.** It’s not particularly difficult to understand how living things might arise, and it’s not particularly difficult to understand that they’ll have preferences. Everything else follows. > [@](#): > > **No. You are too stupid to understand that that sentence is an assertion of value, not a logical demonstration of value.** How did you come to make that sentence? If “value” is already a defined concept, then you’re making a meaningful claim about whether something is valuable or not; if it’s not, your arbitrary definition will eventually be subjected to evolutionary forces and demonstrated to be consistent or inconsistent with continued existence. > [@](#): > > **No shit. Who made the claim that evolution could not explain the existence of living things? Not I. Not anyone else in the thread in question. What I do claim is that: “Survival is the only/best ethic” is not a claim that you have derived logically. It is one that you assert without demonstration.** I’VE NEVER CLAIMED THAT SURVIVAL IS THE BEST ETHIC! It may be the case that the most successful ethic actually instructs its carriers to attempt NOT to survive. Haven’t you ever heard of the Selfish Gene hypothesis? Survival isn’t the best ethic, but the best ethic is the one that survives. > [@](#): > > **Yes, you consider it. What you don’t do is demonstrate how that case allows you to derive an ethical system from pure logic. Once again, you simply state that it is so. this is a recurring theme in TVAA posts. Say something is so. When asked to demonstrate that claim, say it is so again. Repeat as necessary, making sure to call folks idiots and morons for not understanding how brilliant a creature is TVAA.** But I DO demonstrate it logically – it’s just that the proof is given in English instead of arcane mathematical statements. I’m not claiming I can determine the specifics of what this ethical system will say – I’m claiming that, using logic, I can determine that ethical systems (that describe preferences and goals) will arise, and that they will inevitably develop certain properties. I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself if you would stop rectally stuffing your head long enough to get even a marginally accurate sense of what I’m saying. This is the third or fourth time you’ve made completely inaccurate statements about what I’m trying to show – I don’t know which is dumber, that you’re continually defeating a straw man or that you think the straw man is really my argument. > [@](#): > > **Almost all the time.** The structure of the computer determines how the computer acts in response to the rest of the universe. That IS the same as deriving new statements from axioms. Computers are _always_ doing this. > [@](#): > > \*\*Yes. Performing operations is not the same as deriving theorems in a Peano Axiomatization. \*\* So? They don’t need to use Peano Axiomatizations for GIT to apply – all they need to be capable of doing is demonstrating that 2+2=4. Performing operations (establishing relationships between statements) is all that’s required. > [@](#): > > **No, it is not. A computer that is doing nothing but replicating input strings onto a screen is not deriving theorems in a Peano Axiomatization. Amazingly enough, I have needed to point this out to TVAA more than once.** The physical system of the computer IS accepting input and transmitting the signal. This DOES require that the component interactions of the computer’s mechanisms determine how an initial condition results in later conditions – and so GIT will apply, since we both know that physics is sufficiently complex to generate arithmetic. Amazingly enough, I’ve needed point this out to YOU more than once. Get it through your thick head, **Spiritus**. > [@](#): > > **This is the stupid mistake. Actually, it is a coule of stupid mistakes rolled on top of each other. First, he repeats his mistaken assertion that GIT applies to all UTM’s regardless of what they are doing.** It does, and it’s not an assertion. Any UTM can be simulated by any other UTM as a program. This program MUST be consistent, or the original UTM couldn’t exist in the first place, and this program MUST be sufficiently complex to generate arithmetic. Thus, GIT applies to the program, and thus to the UTM. GIT doesn’t necessarily apply to a program the UTM runs. This is something like the sixth time I’ve said this, **Spiritus**. My estimation of your intelligence is now reaching record lows. It’s not a matter of what the UTM is _doing_… it’s what the UTM _is_. > [@](#): > > \*\*Second, he thinks that the consistency of the UTM doing teh modeling has some implication for the statements being generated by the TM. This is simply wrong. The TM is generating _all_ possible statements, including contradictions. That list of statements _cannot be consistent_. (Actually, it isn’t even a system, just a list of statements, so “consistent” doesn’t even apply. However, if you try to reduce the list of statements into an axiom set the sysem those axioms define would be necessarily inconsistent.) \*\* The program the UTM runs does not need to be consistent… but the description of the UTM’s workings, its _running of the program_, is necessarily consistent. Otherwise we’ve ruled out the UTM’s ability to work in the first place. Thus the workings of the UTM are subject to GIT… > [@](#): > > \*\*No, this is another of those cases where you just keep repeating assertions and thinking that means you have proved them. **GIT** requres a very specific set of conditions to apply before it holds. A computer that simply generates all strings of finite length does not meet those conditions. Nor does a computational device that simply echoes input back to screen. Nor does a pocket calculator. Nor does a Universal Turing Machine that is doing pretty much anything other than deriving statements in an axiomatic system. \*\* No, the program the computer is running does not meet those conditions. The **computer itself** does meet those conditions. > [@](#): > > \*\*Wow. How can I possibly counter the “invisible experts” argument. Wait – I remember. “Uh-uh! My Daddy said that I was right!” > :rolleyes: > Congratulations. That is possibly the most pathetic rhetorical tactic that I have seen since 4[sup]th[/sup] grade. \*\* It’s not an argument – it’s merely a statement. Error is always possible; I acknowledge that the mathematical possibility that I’m in error is non-zero. Given that I’ve confirmed my position with people far more competent than you, _I_ am sufficiently convinced of the position’s correctness to keep this up indefinitely. > [@](#): > > **You haven’t a clue as to what I think, obviously. Saying GIT does not restrict all things is not equivalent to saying Nothing is restricted. Maybe you can ask one of your invisible experts to explain that to you.** All computers ARE restricted, because the behavior of the physical world is necessarily limited. > [@](#): > > **Ah, yes, your The Matrix was revealed TRUTH argument. You really should have taken the red pill.** _The Matrix_ was an awful movie – the points it made were obvious to any intelligent person. I’m not surprised that you’ve not familiar with those points, however. > [@](#): > > **Really? Let’s see if you can find one.** > [@](#): > > **You are correct that that is not what GIT says. It is also not something that I have ever said. Perhaps you would be so kind as to post my actual words instead of your summaries of my words. Your summaries lack a certain . . . shall we say “desirable accuracy”. :wally** From the GIT thread: * * * ## Any inconsistent system can derive all truths, as well as all falsehoods. Getting a system that can prove all truths and nothing else is impossible, although GIT itself does not prove that. **SM** : Well, I think we can give this one to GIT by assuming that some of the unproveable theorems in a Peano axiomatization are, in fact, true. Obviously, GIT does not guarnatee this (being unconcerned with soundness), but I don’t think it is a horrible assumptive leap to make. We don’t need to “assume” that they’re true. Statements are either true or false relative to the axioms in a consistent system. Principles of mathematics MUCH more basic than GIT show this to be the case. Again, from the same thread: **SM** : The only thing GIT tells us about marks on a paper is that there is no way to ever interpret marks on paper to be a proof of certain valid number theoretic statements because no such proofs can exist. This is a limitation of math, not a limitation of pencil and paper. This is incorrect. GIT doesn’t tell us that some statements do not have proofs. (It’s known that there aren’t any proofs for false statements within consistent systems, but this is trivial.) GIT tells us that _within a given consistent axiomatic system_, there will be true statements that the system cannot generate a proof for. There might well be axiomatic systems that are consistent with the original one that CAN prove some of those statements, but then there will always be other statements that the new system can’t prove. **SM** states that GIT implies some valid statements have no proofs. THIS IS WRONG! Later on, he says this: **SM** : GIT is absolutely no help to you here. GIT says nothing about “possibilities not capable of being manifested within a system”. You appear to be suffering from the misunderstanding that every true statement in a Peano Axiomatization has a “possible proof”, but GIT just won’t let us manifest them. This is incorrect. GIT says that no possible proof exists for some true statements. Again, same mistake. GIT doesn’t say that there are no possible proofs for some true statements, it says that there are no possible proofs _within specific axiomatic systems for specific statements_. > [@](#): > > **My actual claim as that GIT implies that certain statements cannot be proven to be true in a Peano Axiomatization. You can prove those statements by using extended (or simply different) sets of axioms, but that does not imply that the truth holds in the Peano Axiomatization. Our confidence in that conclusion can only be as great as our confidence in the new axiom set. I even provided an illustration by referencing the axiom of choice and ZF set theory. Perhaps you can get one of your invisible experts in mathematics to explain the reference for you.** Read [this](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms), you moron. As it points out, GIT applies for any set of axioms that are at least as strong as Peano’s. The extended or alternate set of axioms may be able to prove the formerly unprovable statements, but there will then be NEW unprovable statements to contend with. GIT implies much, much more than you’ve stated – and presumably much more than you understand. [quote] \*\*Here’s the point that you don’t understand: **“can be”** does not imply **“is”**. But “is” implies “can be”. > [@](#): > > \*\*Here’s another point that you don’t understand: a system cannot be proven to be consistent from within itself. That is GIT[sup]2[/sup]. \*\* WRONG. Godel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem states that, and I quote, “in any consistent axiomatizable theory (axiomatizable means the axioms can be computably generated) which can encode sequences of numbers (and thus the syntactic notions of “formula”, “sentence”, “proof”) the consistency of the system in not provable in the system.” This does NOT apply to all systems, only to sufficiently powerful and complete systems. Stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Kal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9de053/32.png) [@Kal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/83 "2003-04-26T17:52:17Z")
Could you repeat that please? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/84 "2003-04-26T17:56:02Z")
Sure. Calling Spiritus Mundi an idiot is rather like pissing in a hurricane. But I guess when you gotta go, you gotta go. Tell us, Vorlon, does it really taste like warm beer? ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/85 "2003-04-26T17:56:16Z")
Does **TVAA** remind anyone else of **Justhink**? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/86 "2003-04-26T17:57:20Z")
A bit, yes. For what it’s worth, he’s the user formerly known as The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/87 "2003-04-26T18:00:02Z")
And I may ask the admins to change it back… I miss the old name. Still, I was politely asked to do so by some reasonable individuals… ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/88 "2003-04-26T18:01:19Z")
I’ve just posted a series of statements made by **Spiritus Mundi** about the nature of GIT and what it says. I’ve tried to show how they’re not only incorrect, but they’re statements that he’s just claimed he never made. Isn’t anyone going to talk about _that_ instead of my former handle? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/89 "2003-04-26T18:03:50Z")
Well, the problem was that it ruined the board layout for anyone using 800x600 resolution. Lots of people do not have big monitors. I had thought at the time that you did it out of respect to others. Silly me. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/90 "2003-04-26T18:09:15Z")
I can only hope this **SM** pitting goes as well as [mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77559) did. 😃 Seeing as it is already on page two, I have little hope of that anymore. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/91 "2003-04-26T18:11:25Z")
Regarding Vorlon, are you guys referring to [this](http://home.rmci.net/bwarden/menu_1.htm)? ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/92 "2003-04-26T18:16:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Well, the problem was that it ruined the board layout for anyone using 800x600 resolution. Lots of people do not have big monitors. I had thought at the time that you did it out of respect to others. Silly me. \*\* Of course I did it out of respect for others, **Lib**. It’s just that I didn’t do it out of respect for _you_. If you were the only person reading these boards, I do believe I’d adopt the full name of the Shadows as a handle. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/93 "2003-04-26T18:19:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*I can only hope this **SM** pitting goes as well as [mine](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77559) did. 😃 Seeing as it is already on page two, I have little hope of that anymore. ☹ \*\* I think the lesson here is that three post doctoral degrees is the prerequisite for pitting \*\* Spiritus Mundi\*\*, and even then it’s iffy. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/94 "2003-04-26T18:19:35Z")
Ah, now that was an interesting Pitting. Of all the people in the GIT thread, **erislover** you were the only one I was sorry I couldn’t convince. You were at least paying attention… ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/95 "2003-04-26T18:20:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Of course I did it out of respect for others, **Lib**. It’s just that I didn’t do it out of respect for _you_. > > If you were the only person reading these boards, I do believe I’d adopt the full name of the Shadows as a handle. \*\* Maybe you should try The Vorlon Ambassador’s Logical Fallacy. I don’t use 800x600 resolution. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/96 "2003-04-26T18:21:56Z")
I’ve spoken with people with those prerequisites, and they say **Spiritus** is wrong. What other conclusion can I draw? The problem is that **Spiritus** not only doesn’t consider arguments not couched in special terms to be worthy of consideration, he’s unable to discuss mathematical ideas in everyday English without getting them wrong. His brain is like a clay jug filled with leprous spleen-squeezings. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/97 "2003-04-26T18:24:31Z")
Stuff it, Mr. I-Don’t-Understand-The-Nature-of-Modal-Logic-But-I-Can-Make-Ridiculous-Claims-With-It-Anyway. You wouldn’t recognize a logical fallacy if you were beaten about the head with one. How utterly convenient – arrogance and stupidity in a single package. Your mother must have been very proud. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/98 "2003-04-26T18:28:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*I’ve spoken with people with those prerequisites, and they say **Spiritus** is wrong. > > What other conclusion can I draw? > > The problem is that **Spiritus** not only doesn’t consider arguments not couched in special terms to be worthy of consideration, he’s unable to discuss mathematical ideas in everyday English without getting them wrong. > > His brain is like a clay jug filled with leprous spleen-squeezings. \*\* That is truly rich. You’re the little chihuahua who used to crash every thread I participated in and demand that I define words like “if” and “and”. Even presuming that you’re telling the truth about speaking to competent peope — which is a generous stretch — it is entirely likely that you have misunderstood everything they have said. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/99 "2003-04-26T18:29:13Z")
Did you just talk shit to **Lib** ’s face? The end is near for you my friend, I can sense it. I will say one thing, whatever you lack in brains you make up for in balls. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2003, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273/100 "2003-04-26T18:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TVAA \* > \*\*Stuff it, Mr. I-Don’t-Understand-The-Nature-of-Modal-Logic-But-I-Can-Make-Ridiculous-Claims-With-It-Anyway. > > You wouldn’t recognize a logical fallacy if you were beaten about the head with one. > > How utterly convenient – arrogance and stupidity in a single package. Your mother must have been very proud. \*\* My mother? You’re a dick inside an assful of shit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritus-mundi/171273.md?page=6)