🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@robryk

no its still about boundedness, that just address the leftmost aspect but its actually more complicated than just that (jon was struggling with the basics so i didnt want to make it this technical)...

So take your example... how would you map an unbounded variable like altitutde to your (0,1) interval... even though you removed the idea of a "left most" the mapping still cant occur linearly.

@JonKramer @Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer pretty sure you meant this as a reply somewhere int he thread.

@JonKramer

"Hot as hell" is not a value anywhere on the celsius scale... so either your a moron, or intellectually dishonest... but you know what was asked of you and instead of nswering honestly you have some sort of mental issue where you just cant and instead need to manipulate the conversation to make it sound like you are right when it sounds bat shit loony toons to literally anyone listening to your answers.... and im pretty sure you know it because thats a level of dumb that just doesnt exist while still capable of having a discussion...

Ive lost a lot of respect for you in this conversation.. not the early parts where you disagree, but right now where you are clearly acting in bad faith.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

No you literally failed to do it. You tried to misrepresent the original question (a temperature that is bounded on one side at 0 and goes to infinity) and instead were manipulative and dishonest and tried to change the change and the axiom just so you could find a way to make it **look** like you answered it even though you didnt address the actual question at all.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

> 0 would be zero atomic/molecular/KE vibration, 100 would be vibrations at the speed of light?

first off....

Temperature isnt limited by speed of light limitations in the physical world... temperature keeps increasing but is represented by exotic pair production rather than increases in speed (remember temperature is not limited to the speed of molecules, it exists even when there are no molcules to speak of in the form of IR).

You are proving my point... you are trying to make some fictional "maximum temperature" so you can fit it into your broken 0-100... but we are talking about temperature as a value that is bound on one end (the low end) and unbound on the other... so your being dishonest, again, and trying to cheat.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

> I can come up with a new scale, and call it the Kramer scale. It ranges from ‘as cold as a witch’s tit to hot as hell, in increments of 3.14.

Ok so in this scale (which actually no you cant do) that is 0 (coldest) to 100 (hottest) and apparently only moves in multiples of 3.14 .... the Krammer scale... lets go with this.

In this scale, if you have a 100 krammer temperature, what temperature would that be on the celsius scale? Lets assume whatever temperature that is happens to be some value X on the celsius scale... Now the important follow up... if you have a celsius temperature of X+10, what would that be in the krammer scale? Oh look, its impossible to answer that because your scale is **impossible** at actually quantifying temperature... funny that.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer |

> If you don’t use Kelvin, you are WRONG and don’t know how scales work!!! Also, only 24 hour clocks are acceptable, and only sidereal time!

Again this shows you dont even understand what is being said, yet insist on disagreeing with it.

Kelvin, celcius, and fairnheit are all the same dimensional scales, so they are interchangeable and arbitrary. It doesnt matter.

However you do prove my point because like your other non-sensical example, kelvin cant be represented as 0-100 either, because 0-100 is double bounded and kelvin is single bounded...

Go ahead, try to explain how you could represent temperature on a scale of 0-100.. ill wait.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

Exactly its not possible and you are incapable.. but your so stubborn instead of admitting you are clueless your gonna pretend that now that you have to prove yourself you dont care and walk away...

Pretty transparent at this point your either intellectually dishonest or arguing in bad faith... not sure which.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

If scales dont matter, im going to sit here and wait patiently while you try to explain to me how you'd represent a value like altitude (same dimensional as left-right) on a scale of 0-100

I'll wait...

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

Which proves you completely dont understand how scales work.

It is the dimensionality of the number that matters. It just so happens you **must** use different types of scales to represent different dimensionalities. Thats a fundemental fact of numbers.

They are functional, practically and fundementally different. One is literally impossible to represent the idea, the other isnt.

I mean for example, which ideology do you place at 0 (the most left end of the scale)? Whatever ideology that is, how woudl you then represent a different ideology that is more left wing than whatever you attached at 0... you couldnt, because your on a bounded scale not an unbounded.

Moreover, where on your scale would you put a party or person that is neither left nor right, 50? I have 50 of what? Nothing? The inflection point itself is less of an issue, the bounding of the scale is.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

> A gestalt. 1 being far left principles, 100 being far right. If you want more info:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_political_spectrum#:~:text=Generally%2C%20the%20left%20wing%20is,tradition%2C%20reaction%20and%20nationalism%22.

Your response is non-sensical. You are telling me you are measuring two properties, left-principles vs right principles, and using a one dimensional value to represent a two dimensional idea... that makes no sense.

Take altitude from my earlier example (which is a value of the same dimensions as left-right)... how would you represent that on a 0-100 scale... you cant, like its literally impossible. This is true for the exact same reasons its completely nonsensical to use 0-100 to represent left-right.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

> 100 would be Genghis Khan. 0 would be government at all.

No im not asking examples of things that are at 0 or 100... I am asking, what quality is 0 to 100 measuring?

> I just don’t see the need for anything other than whole numbers here.

My objection has nothing to do with you using whole numbers. I used whole numbers in my example too. The difference here is more fundemental than that...

my line had an absolute inflection point (0) that divides the two categories, yours has an arbitrary point (50) which is relative rather than absolute, that makes a huge difference. Your scale represents things like "hot, cold, warm" but would fail to represent things like "what is my altitude above sea level" where there is a clear 0 people, clear negatives, and clear positives, and no maximum or minimum

So by going from an unbounded (infinite at both ends) scale with an absolute center point (0) to one that has none of that is a VERY different representation and is not capable of representing the information we want.

> If you want to toss in authoritarians

Nope, I have no interest in tossing this in, why would we want to it has no relavance to if your on the left or right, it is a different metric. My point is two things can be on the exact same point of the left-right scale and still be vastly different when measured by other scales.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

> Looking at your number line… you see the Dems, Obama, and Biden as closer to the socialists, Greens, etc. than to the GOP? Really??

Nope, lets use the analogy to show why.

I am just going to pick arbitrary numbers they dont represent where I think these parties fall on the left-right spectrum. They are just to illustrate a point:

Lets say, hypothecially, that communists were -10000, socialists -1000, green party -100... so all on the left... now if the democrats were -1, and the GOP were +1, then the democrats would be on the left, and the GOP on the right, but the democrats would be more similar in general to the GOP than they would any of the other parties on the left. Doesnt change the fact they are on the left.

> On a scale from 1-100, I see the GOP about 80. I see the dems about a 70. Dem socialists about 50, socialists about 20. Greens come in at about 30 maybe? Anything to the right of Saunders, at 50, is ‘right wing.’ Anything to the left of him is ‘left wing.’

Thats an odd scale being one-sided to represent a two dimensional property.... in this scale 1 represents "the least X" and 100 represents "the most X" what is X?. A single magnitude scale makes no sense when talking about a binary unbounded spectrum.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

> just curious, where would you place

So keeping in mind the left isnt a single point in space... as a politicial spectrum its a bit like the real number line. There is a clear center dividing left and right in an absolute way, the 0.. but the left goes off into the negatives infinitely, and the right goes off into the positives infinitely.

In other words just because two things are on the left doesnt mean they are anywhere near eachother in the extremity of their ideology. Something at -1 (slightly on the left) will not at represent something that is -1000 (extremely left) which in turn wont look much like anything at -1000000... I mean sure they may all match a core defintiion, but some may embrace that definition to a larger extreme... much as all those numbers are all negative numbers (and thus similar in one way) they are still very different numbers.

> Democratic socialists

left

> actual socialists

left

> communist party

left

> or the Green Party...

left

That said they are all on very very different parts of the left spectrum and not at all near eachother on that spectrum, but still clearly in the left.

More important on other political spectrum scales (such as authoritarianism) these ideologies vary greatly and arent on the same sides of many of those scales.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

Your free to think that... and of course i would say your wrong.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei

@JonKramer

No they are **objectively** left wing to anyone who is objective and knowledgable in the matter.

I do expect people who have strong biases (particularly those ont he extreme end of the spectrum) to think that though.

@Free_Idealist @pyranose @georgetakei