How Does OS 012 Quantify Conflict and Dialogue Using Ternary Logic?

[Moonrat]

Wow, hello all, I stumbled across this BBS while doing research on 'ternary math sets' for a book I am writing.

You now have given me some wonderful reading for my off time pleasure, thank you!

Anyway, I was curious if I could gain the help from a few adventurous minds here.

I am writing a book about OS 012. OS 012 is a internet dialectic that was created by people discussing war before the invasion of Iraq.

It is based on a ternary number set and can quantify conflict and dialouge with surprising accuracy.

I would love to have some feedback a bit about this idea from some of you and maybe engage in an OS 012 dialouge so you all can see how it works..

I would love you all to challenge it and challenge me a bit with it, and who knows, maybe some of these discussions will wind up in the book...

Any takers?

Is this the right forum for this? ( I would assume because dialectic is a tool of philosoph, but OS 012 is NOT a philosophy at all)



thank you in advance and look forward to some rather stimulating conversation..

Moonrat

Oh, here is OS 012, but please, this is the beta site and, well, don't worry about the presentation , it's a little tongue in cheek and some people miss that. I am still figuring out the proper way to present it

OS 012

 

[heusdens]

The pre-Iraq invasion discussion was something like this.

The US accuses the Iraq govt. of still having weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq could not produce "evidence" of not having such weapons.
That is why the US invaded Iraq.

What was wrong with this?

It is "false" jurisdiction. Someone has to be proven guilty beyond doubt, before that someone (or state) can be sentenced guilty.

The US did not provide evidence beyond doubt, in fact part of their "evidence" showed up to be false evidence.

Most people knew this. It was known that Iraq was weapon free. The UN inspections had shown that already beyond reasonable doubt.

The US had served the world badly by introducing inverse jurisdiction, it accuses and sentences a nation as guilty if that other nation can not proof the opposite.

In general one can not proof a negative. The accusing party has to proof a positive (the proof for the charges of which one is accused).

 

[Moonrat]

hmmm, I'm not so sure how your post applies, but I do disagree that you cannot prove a negative.

You can prove a negative (assuming that you define a negative as a false idea) False ideas are negative, yes, but they have function and existence. By identifying these properties in a realm of 'rational discussion', i.e a rational enviroment, false ideas become exposed for being essentially what they are, art or image, not true and objective.

It is my hope and work that, with the help of the internet, we can create rational enviroments for world leaders to use to tap into the conflict of idea for mutual win foriegn policies.

OS 012 is the dialectic of 'how' to do that.

Moonrat

 

[heusdens]

A negative is something like this:

Can you proof that there is NOT a planet of the approx. size of the Earth in another solar system?

Since we can't currently measure/observe such small planets, only planets which are of size bigger then Jupiter, there is no way to proof that.

 

[Moonrat]

A negative is something like this:

Can you proof that there is NOT a planet of the approx. size of the Earth in another solar system?

Since we can't currently measure/observe such small planets, only planets which are of size bigger then Jupiter, there is no way to proof that.

My friend, using that kind of dialectic will not take you very far in understanding, for that is, by simple objective observation, NOT a negative but a MYSTERY.

and there is a distinction between a false idea and a mystery, and this is an important distinction to make, one in which OS 012 will help you see for yourself!

PEace

Moonrat