The Relative Theory of Value

[kenshikenji]

I don't want to argue or try to understand your theory, but I've got some thoughts to throw out there, hopefully you find some value in them.

 

 

Have you ever seen the experiment where a $20 bill is auctioned off? My understanding is that it (nearly?) always goes for >$20...can your theory explain this?

 

Another thing that I think is missing, or a problem that is introduced when you claim objective value, is the basis of economic study in the first place -- trade. If a (potential) buyer and seller place/hold/determine an object to have the same value, why would they ever trade?

yes, im aware of that game theory experiment, but it drastically alters the rules of the auction where i think it somehow punishes the second place bidder incentivizing him to keep bidding to try to minimize losses. i dont think this game was taken to another iteration (a repeated game), since another iteration would actually imposing a learning curve on the bidders so they dont fall to any trap of ignorance that was unseen in the first iteration of this game. ill look into this, but my theory already generally acknowledges that people make mistakes in their decision making process. obviously they are trying to minimize loss in this game, but they fell into a trap they didnt foresee. this is the error of the human mind which is fully accounted for in the relative theory of value. these artificial games like prisoners dilemma often take on a new outcome with repeated iterations and the ability of the players to learn from their mistakes.

 

as far as your second question, the necessary condition for a transaction to take place is the profit from trade must exceed the transaction costs.  if it doesnt, then that particular trade will not occur.  but this does not apply to ALL trade.  just those whos potential subjective EXPECTED surplus doesnt exceed EXPECTED transaction costs.  so its not saying there will be NO trade, its just that SOME potential trades will not occur due to EXPECTED loss for at least one party of the trade.

 

But why?  Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeee???  Reading through this stuff is like eating a word salad made of recycled tires.  You have not provided adequate reason to even justify redefining these terms.  What could we possibly gain by accepting your definitions?  What would it change in philosophy?  What problems does it solve?  I know, you say that there are inconsistencies inherent in the implications of the current definitions, but that's like saying that the word "up" needs to be redefined because if someone is upside-down, then up is down, or in a zero-gravity state, "up" is completely relative.  In reality, these redefinition attempts are asinine.  They are not at all useful, nor are they true, nor do they improve anyone's understanding of philosophy.  On the contrary, your arguments work as a grand obfuscation for anyone that intends to apply philosophy in a meaningful way.  I'm sorry that you've invested so much thought in this, but you're really wasting your own time, along with the time of other people who have engaged with you hoping for a reasonable discussion.

ive stated before that the reason why people adopt a particular definition set or theory is that it helps them better understand objective reality which includes any mind. i wouldnt have presented a new definition set or theory of value if i thought the existing definitions and theories were adequate at explaining reality without contradicting themselves or creating paradoxes. 

 

your example of up and down is very relevant. when you define a perspective dependent term with a perspective variable it makes it much easier to communicate if not making communication possible.  im sure NASA would either not use the term "up" or redefine it in terms of angles from the observers perspective.  if you feel that ambiguous definition is somehow useful or "good enough" then it obvious that your tolerance for error is much higher than mine.

 

it is not up to you to say if my theories or definitions do not improve upon or resolve the contradictions that previous definitions or theories present.  all youre doing is making GENERAL claims, you have not made one complete specific argument. and ill be happy to address them when you do.

[shirgall]

You have not provided adequate reason to even justify redefining these terms.

 

Every single conclusion that uses those terms would have to be re-evaluated, and re-justified, in light of the change in meaning. This means full employment for certified philosophers! Money money money!

 

Get certified today. Pay $1000 to FDR and post your notarized picture of a sacrificed yak to the Philosopher Kings double-secret probation forum to start the process! Watch this 38 minute unskippable, un fast forwardable, slide-show linked page flipper with ads to learn the secret that makes sophists quake in fear...

Act in the next 24 hours and you will earn the free "I killed a straw man" tote bag that doubles as a shopping bag at Whole Foods.

[LibertarianSocialist]

1. again, whatever the cost (market price of inputs) that went into producing a good is only the concern of the producer. it has absolutely no relevance to the consumer who actually values the good for consumption. price is a negotiation between producer and consumer. that is a totally different topic than value. price is related to SUBJECTIVE value and not relative value. consumer subjective value is the highest price he is willing to pay for a good. producer subjective value is the lowest price hes willing to sell the good for. as long as price lies between the two, a transaction is likely to occur. equilibrium or market clearing price is just the aggregate analysis of this situation. this is not a mystery. i dont know what the LTV is valid for if it is trying to solve something that is already known by economics.

 

2. even if i assume youre correct, that the LTV is in no way trying to determine the value i describe with RTV, you seem to be confused at what the LTV is describing. first you say its equilibrium (market clearing) price, and now you say its the cost of production. the latter would be more relevant to labor inputs, the former is as i said in 1.

 

3. in no way does my model assume a free market. it takes into account ALL possible conditions, the variables are positive observations of the inherent properties of the good and the state of the consumer. you can just as easily evaluate these in a free market, oligopoly, market monopoly, or government monopoly. i think youre too wrapped up in criticizing the perfectly competitive model of classical economics. youre misapplying that argument here because youre used to using it in other debates.

 

4. i dont think youre making a clear distinction between relative value, subjective value, and price. these are all different objects.

 

5. my model does not assume a free market. the summary only describes the perspective of a profit maximizing producer. it doesnt try to describe the strategy of a inefficient producer who is not concerned with profit like government. but that doesnt mean it assumes a free market. the profit maximizing producer can operate in either a total free market or a government run economy.

 

6. again, to try to determine market clearing price, one must take into account demand, not only the production perspective. if it never comes to market, there will be no price for the good.

1. Except in a fixed price market. Ltv attempts to approximate theoretical equilibrium price, the main distinction is markets can distort this. A state which fixes prices artificially consequently has a distorted equilibrium level.

 

2. The ltv posits that price will equalize with cost in a theoretical free market. They are In theory the same. Only if we incorporate the distorting elements of the consumers personal value (with all their trappings) will price be removed from this.

 

3. I thought you were trying to pin down a fundamental of human nature? All really existing markets involve a degree of coercion. In light of this you must concede that the "state of the consumer" is manipulated by ulterior factors. Therefore we must acknowledge that value as we know it will never equal true value because nothing outside theory is perfectly equal. For you value calculations to be correct we have to assume that coercion is inevitable and it's extent unknowable. Therefore only artificial value, and not true value is knowable.

 

6. Market price is not important, it will be distorted. The true cost of production is the minimum amount a product can be sold on the (perfect) market. Assuming the fairy-tale of perfect competition, prices must reach this point. Sales volume (demand) is variable, price is not. Any price increases are a consequence of higher costs (eg. shorter production runs) or cartelization /sticky supply.

If I produce a chair, I know how much its cost, and so value, is (so much wood, time, training etc.). This is clearly defined by the ltv. This must be the price of the product. Any value held by consumers that differs from this is due to market distortions, even if as simple as the fact people are not perfectly identical.

 

Ltv makes no attempt to perfectly represent true value, however, given the tendency of price variable markets to distort true value on account of their inability to separate true costs from artificial, it is felt such a crude approximation is preferable to a system that permits coercive profiteering.

 

In the end, we can probably say ltv is incomplete (by design), and that your theory would be ideal IF people were autonomous individuals not coerced by their environs.

[kenshikenji]

1. Except in a fixed price market. Ltv attempts to approximate theoretical equilibrium price, the main distinction is markets can distort this. A state which fixes prices artificially consequently has a distorted equilibrium level.

 

2. The ltv posits that price will equalize with cost in a theoretical free market. They are In theory the same. Only if we incorporate the distorting elements of the consumers personal value (with all their trappings) will price be removed from this.

 

3. I thought you were trying to pin down a fundamental of human nature? All really existing markets involve a degree of coercion. In light of this you must concede that the "state of the consumer" is manipulated by ulterior factors. Therefore we must acknowledge that value as we know it will never equal true value because nothing outside theory is perfectly equal. For you value calculations to be correct we have to assume that coercion is inevitable and it's extent unknowable. Therefore only artificial value, and not true value is knowable.

 

6. Market price is not important, it will be distorted. The true cost of production is the minimum amount a product can be sold on the market (outside a distorted market). Assuming the fairy-tale of perfect competition, prices must reach this point. Sales volume (demand) is variable, price is not. Many price increases are a consequence of higher costs (eg. shorter production runs) or cartelization /sticky supply.

If I produce a chair I know how much its cost, and so value, is (so much wood, time, training etc.). This is clearly defined by the ltv. Any value by consumers that differs from this is due to market distortions, even if as simple as the fact people are not perfectly identical.

 

Ltv makes no attempt to perfectly represent true value, however, given the tendency of price variable markets to distort true value on account of their inability to separate true costs from artificial, it is felt such a crude approximation is preferable to a system that permits coercive profiteering.

 

In the end, we can probably say ltv is incomplete (by design), and that your theory would be ideal IF people were autonomous individuals not coerced by their environs.

1. you cant fix prices and have a true equilibrium. apparently youre not aware but price floors or ceilings that interfere with the natural equilibrium price only produces supply gluts or shortages.

 

2. the market erodes profit to 0, or in otherwords price approaches cost only in a perfectly competitively PRODUCER market, with a relatively less competitive consumer market.  again, this applies only to the producers who are able to produce at that market clearing price and relies on the conditions i mentioned.  what is not seen is all the producers who could not produce at this price and produce another ogood.

 

3. again, my value theory allows for any condition.  it is not restricted to being a free market model. you are misusing that argument here. i know youre programmed to use it whenever you debate any libertarian, but you have to use it when it applies. it does not here.

 

6. market prices can only be distorted by government, everything else is an element of the market and therefore incapable of being distorted by itself.  in the real world you dont have perfect competition on both the demand and supply side of any market or industry. any imbalance will increase/decrease one sides bargaining power and hence have more influence in choosing a price that is further away from their reserve price.  supply and demand are independent of eachother with respect to the market of a particular good. a fact you fail to realize.

 

value and price are independent of each other with respect to the final consumer of that good.

[LibertarianSocialist]

1. you cant fix prices and have a true equilibrium. apparently youre not aware but price floors or ceilings that interfere with the natural equilibrium price only produces supply gluts or shortages.

 

2. the market erodes profit to 0, or in otherwords price approaches cost only in a perfectly competitively PRODUCER market, with a relatively less competitive consumer market. again, this applies only to the producers who are able to produce at that market clearing price and relies on the conditions i mentioned. what is not seen is all the producers who could not produce at this price and produce another ogood.

 

3. again, my value theory allows for any condition. it is not restricted to being a free market model. you are misusing that argument here. i know youre programmed to use it whenever you debate any libertarian, but you have to use it when it applies. it does not here.

 

6. market prices can only be distorted by government, everything else is an element of the market and therefore incapable of being distorted by itself. in the real world you dont have perfect competition on both the demand and supply side of any market or industry. any imbalance will increase/decrease one sides bargaining power and hence have more influence in choosing a price that is further away from their reserve price. supply and demand are independent of eachother with respect to the market of a particular good. a fact you fail to realize.

 

value and price are independent of each other with respect to the final consumer of that good.

So really you just want to demonstrate how value is formed under the specific conditions of an imperfect market system. You make no real attempt at explaining value outside those artificial constructs, or in alternative constructs, nor any attempt at pinning down a "real theoretical value" under perfect market conditions, but are seemingly satisfied with a wildly distorted price, just because that's how things are. You essentially lump a shit load of variables under "consumers personal value" and expect it to mean something. Unless you elaborate on this you will find some truly absurd and highly variable results. A seller with a gun to my head significantly increases the utility of my purchase.

 

Much more than government can distort markets. The environment can, society can, memes can, pretty much any contingency can.

[kenshikenji]

So really you just want to demonstrate how value is formed under the specific conditions of an imperfect market system. You make no real attempt at explaining value outside those artificial constructs, or in alternative constructs, nor any attempt at pinning down a "real theoretical value" under perfect market conditions, but are seemingly satisfied with a wildly distorted price, just because that's how things are. You essentially lump a shit load of variables under "consumers personal value" and expect it to mean something. Unless you elaborate on this you will find some truly absurd and highly variable results. A seller with a gun to my head significantly increases the utility of my purchase.

 

Much more than government can distort markets. The environment can, society can, memes can, pretty much any contingency can.

again, please stop assuming. my model works under any condition. imperfect, or perfect competition.  you dont understand what a construct is, in no way do mental constructs create an instance of it.  constructs are sets used to classify real objects.  your reasoning is obviously fallacious, since my theory actually does clarify what value is. it makes progress but doesnt actually state EXACTLY what it is.  a seller with a gun to your head changes the valuation, relative value takes this into account by adjusting values of selecting the option that doesnt leave you dead since this is your objective. i suggest you rewatch the video before you criticize.  your criticisms are just misunderstandings on your part.

 

those other things than government, ARE the free market.  it cant distort itself. distortion must come from outside the system.

[Guest Gee]

Say Kenkesikenji, I think this might be more effective if you present your alternative hypothysis.

How might your theory be disproved?

[kenshikenji]

Say Kenkesikenji, I think this might be more effective if you present your alternative hypothysis.

How might your theory be disproved?

to disprove you find a contradiction, either within the definition set or in a previous theory that i hold, or with respect to a scientific/mathematical law or theorem, but this is not a rigorous mathematical definition set so that will be difficult. but if you do, you must refer to a specific argument or definition i make in my presentation by referencing a passage or an exact time stamp of the video. dont present what YOU THINK i meant or at least ask for clarification. or just apply my theory and see how it leads to absurdity or contradiction. and be sure your argument is substantial, non-substantial contradictions can be resolved by changing a few words in an explanation

 

so in order to argue against it, show where it may lose explanatory power, or find where another value theory is a better alternative to mine and prove it for MOST cases.  as ive quickly shown all other value theories (subjective, intrinsic/objective, and labor) are all idiotic

 

so, for example, here is an argument against the subjective theory of valule. if you have  a tendency to adopt the subjective theory of value then you cannot believe in morality, since choice of action is subjective and you cannot call  another person's actions objectively right or wrong. so therefore you cannot adopt two theories such as UPB and subjective value at the same time since UPB declares particular beharior to be universally/objectively preferable. (but it happens that both theories are fallacious)

 

REMEMBER, ALL DISPROOF IS PROOF.  YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE. dont believe in fallacies like " you cannot prove a negative claim."

[shirgall]

REMEMBER, ALL DISPROOF IS PROOF.  YOU CAN PROVE A NEGATIVE. dont believe in fallacies like " you cannot prove a negative claim."

 

Remember that the basis of scientific inquiry is the principle of disconfirmation. All you were asked was to formulate a null hypothesis that could be disproven, as a way for you to check your own thinking. If there is no possible falsification of your claims and conclusion, then that should be a red flag as to whether your thinking is lacking in clarity or explanatory power.

[kenshikenji]

Remember that the basis of scientific inquiry is the principle of disconfirmation. All you were asked was to formulate a null hypothesis that could be disproven, as a way for you to check your own thinking. If there is no possible falsification of your claims and conclusion, then that should be a red flag as to whether your thinking is lacking in clarity or explanatory power.

all i said is that it will be difficult not impossible. because my theory is only in its infancy and the relative value function is only in a general form.  as you may or may not know the more general a statement is the harder it is to disprove.  the more specific you get the easier it is to find a contradiction.  but all other value theories are also as general if not more so than mine.  so all im asking is you present substantial arguments or make a case that there exists another value theory that has more explanatory power than mine.

[Guest Gee]

Thank you Kenshikenji but if I might be more specific?

 

Your theory has redefined many terms and without a written legdend of exactly what has been redefined and from what to what I find myself (and others are I'm sure) strugling to follow the theory a meaningful manner (as I myself unconcuously forumulate ideas using common definitions by virture of doing so for so long).

 

What I ment to convay in my previous post was could you, given that you yourself must be most aquanited with your own definitions, provide an example of something which would, as proof by contrapositive, invalidate your theory.

 

For example,

Kensyian economics by their foundational theories of value and consumer behaviour posit that stagflation is impossible.

As stagflation has been emphirically observed Kensyian economics is therefore logically invalid.

[kenshikenji]

Thank you Kenshikenji but if I might be more specific?

 

Your theory has redefined many terms and without a written legdend of exactly what has been redefined and from what to what I find myself (and others are I'm sure) strugling to follow the theory a meaningful manner (as I myself unconcuously forumulate ideas using common definitions by virture of doing so for so long).

 

What I ment to convay in my previous post was could you, given that you yourself must be most aquanited with your own definitions, provide an example of something which would, as proof by contrapositive, invalidate your theory.

 

For example,

Kensyian economics by their foundational theories of value and consumer behaviour posit that stagflation is impossible.

As stagflation has been emphirically observed Kensyian economics is therefore logically invalid.

yes, sorry, the "for dummies" version skipped definition. in the long presentation i start with my definition set. https://youtu.be/jMza4j5ov24?t=2m38s

 

you dont prove something by contrapositive.  contraposition is just an equivalent statement.  but yes you proving the contraposition is equivalent to proving the positive. its proof by contradiction i think you mean. contradiction relies on precise definition. finding an object that fits a definition and its complement or a set that is mutually exclusive at the same time is the contradiction you look for in proof by contradiction. but be sure its substantial, if its non substantial its like a removable discontinuity in calculus, it can be easily resolved by adjusting a few words.  substantial contradictions require a whole reworking of the theory or to reject it totally.

 

http://www.mathwords.com/r/removable_discontinuity.htm

 

the phillips curve is not keynesian.  the example you are referencing is disproving an all or none statement. to disprove an all or none claim all you have to show is one instance (a some claim) of the negated claim and youre done.

 

so if you can show a value that is not relative then youre done. but this may be an unsubstantial claim. so if you want to really disprove me show that the value of a good is not relative. cannot be determined given the information i claim its relative to. (properties of the good, and state of the consumer)

[LibertarianSocialist]

again, please stop assuming. my model works under any condition. imperfect, or perfect competition. you dont understand what a construct is, in no way do mental constructs create an instance of it. constructs are sets used to classify real objects. your reasoning is obviously fallacious, since my theory actually does clarify what value is. it makes progress but doesnt actually state EXACTLY what it is. a seller with a gun to your head changes the valuation, relative value takes this into account by adjusting values of selecting the option that doesnt leave you dead since this is your objective. i suggest you rewatch the video before you criticize. your criticisms are just misunderstandings on your part.

 

those other things than government, ARE the free market. it cant distort itself. distortion must come from outside the system.

I wasn't referring exclusively to mental constructs, but of constructs in a general sense.

 

A theory of value ought to try to explain true value. Your theory is essentially one where A (inherent properties of good) is a value on its own but is also dependent on B (consumers value), but B is unknowable and highly variable. Then add factor C (coercive market distortions) which B is a subset, and you have a pretty useless formula. I would gladly accept it as a theory of price formation under an imperfect variable price market, but not as as theory of true value, as it sheds no light on any fundamental truths of man.

 

So a tornado that destroys your factory and allows your competitor to get a monopoly hold is just the free market? The market is just an artificial construct superimposed over the natural world.

Governance can come from many areas. The parent governs, the boss governs, society governs the individual. The fact is, markets will never be completely free, only more or less free. If we concede a market is not completely free, their must be a degree of coercion from this. To endorse a system in which coercion is allowed to play a role in price and value formation is unjust and invalid, and in no way reflects any "true value".

[kenshikenji]

I wasn't referring exclusively to mental constructs, but of constructs in a general sense.

 

A theory of value ought to try to explain true value. Your theory is essentially one where A (inherent properties of good) is a value on its own but is also dependent on B (consumers value), but B is unknowable and highly variable. Then add factor C (coercive market distortions) which B is a subset, and you have a pretty useless formula. I would gladly accept it as a theory of price formation under an imperfect variable price market, but not as as theory of true value, as it sheds no light on any fundamental truths of man.

 

So a tornado that destroys your factory and allows your competitor to get a monopoly hold is just the free market? The market is just an artificial construct superimposed over the natural world.

Governance can come from many areas. The parent governs, the boss governs, society governs the individual. The fact is, markets will never be completely free, only more or less free. If we concede a market is not completely free, their must be a degree of coercion from this. To endorse a system in which coercion is allowed to play a role in price and value formation is unjust and invalid, and in no way reflects any "true value".

so was i.

 

B is as knowable as A.   C is already accounted for in A and B.  true value is the thing that prices and subjective value converge upon.

 

i dont know why youre always trying to argue against the free market and the perfectly competitive assumption. maybe all your internet research and communist propaganda only taught you to argue against the assumption of a perfectly competitive market.  this is not the topic to apply that to.

[kenshikenji]

an alternate way to evaluate the relative value of a good

 

[percentient]

Don't skip over style to substance, call people superficial, neglect to empathize with the effort of going through a confusing presentation and lecture people about what value is.

[kenshikenji]

Don't skip over style to substance, call people superficial, neglect to empathize with the effort of going through a confusing presentation and lecture people about what value is.

im sorry, but do you have any substantial criticism here?  this "for dummies" presentation is boiled down to essential arguments. even your argument of style is just a general one. you do not specifically show where it is confusing, let alone address anything substantial of the theory.  so far ive just been getting criticisms of style, minor typos, and misunderstandings.  no arguments about why another value theory has better explanatory than mine or no arguments that show where my theory is contradictory.  the most substantial critique so far has come from a socialist, which is kind of disappointing, unfortunately that was almost a total argument due to misinterpretation of the theory and the misapplication of the argument of a free market assumption..

[percentient]

What should I expect of your value to me?

[kenshikenji]

What should I expect of your value to me?

if you actually understood the video youd see its not MY value. its relative to the consumer and the properties of the good. but it can be evaluated from any perspective.  its not up to your mind to decide what is value. it is already "suspended" in reality.  you are only trying to guess at it.

[Guest Gee]

if you actually understood the video youd see its not MY value. its relative to the consumer and the properties of the good. but it can be evaluated from any perspective.  its not up to your mind to decide what is value. it is already "suspended" in reality.  you are only trying to guess at it.

 

So like Plato's theory of the forms?

[kenshikenji]

So like Plato's theory of the forms?

no. plato's forms are just supersets . supersets are just a more general concept of the instances that populate them.  when i say "suspended" in reality. i mean the mind is trying to measure relative value with their mind.  just like any other objective measurement.

 

i have a video on emotion and how the brain categorizes itself

 

[kenshikenji]

information asymmetry and the relative theory of value

 

[Guest Gee]

information asymmetry and the relative theory of value

 

Thank you for your patience Kenshikenji, I think I'm starting to get a better idea of the theory.

 

Ok, so if I might make an argument by analogy to odd and even functions.

 

If, objective and subjective are analogous to odd and even functions so if value is a function of intrinsic valud (obj) and consumer state (obj) then...

 

value = f (intrinsic property of good, state of consumer)

 

both of these being objective imply value is objective.

 

but subjective evaluation by consumer is a function of state of the consumer

 

subjective value = f (state of the consumer)

 

which means subjective is a function of objective (or an odd function is an even function, which it cant be) therefore subjective must be objective for your theory of value to be objective, which you defined by subjective being a subset of objective and therefore having the properties of objective right?

 

objective is even

subjective must be a subset of objective by the relative theory of value

therefore subjective is even

[kenshikenji]

Thank you for your patience Kenshikenji, I think I'm starting to get a better idea of the theory.

 

Ok, so if I might make an argument by analogy to odd and even functions.

 

If, objective and subjective are analogous to odd and even functions so if value is a function of intrinsic valud (obj) and consumer state (obj) then...

 

value = f (intrinsic property of good, state of consumer)

 

both of these being objective imply value is objective.

 

but subjective evaluation by consumer is a function of state of the consumer

 

subjective value = f (state of the consumer)

 

which means subjective is a function of objective (or an odd function is an even function, which it cant be) therefore subjective must be objective for your theory of value to be objective, which you defined by subjective being a subset of objective and therefore having the properties of objective right?

 

objective is even

subjective must be a subset of objective by the relative theory of value

therefore subjective is even

odd an even functions are mutually exclusive because the axis of symmetry is the y axis for even functions and the reflection of the x axis for odd functions.  this is not the case with subjective and objective in my definition set. to use this concept is not a good analogy because odd and even functions are not complements of each other even though they are mutually exclusive.

 

again, i have a term for the complement of subjective. it is called NON-SUBJECTIVE. BOTH subjective and non-subjective objects are subsets of and compose (add together to create) the set objective. therefore my definition set classifies relative value as merely NON-SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE.

https://youtu.be/jMza4j5ov24?t=7m57s

 

relative value is a function of the state of the consumer. the state of the consumer are the goals, abilities and external conditions of the consumer.

 

i also have a general form for subjective value which i explained in the long presentation of RTV that i didnt get into in the "for dummies" version

https://youtu.be/e6RjxND_WnM?t=7m17s

 

subjective value = s(mind) = s(sensory data,intelligence).  all variables are subjective making subjective value SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE.

 

 

there are no logical contradictions.

[Guest Gee]

But is it not that no logical contradictions exist in your theory because your theory prohibits logical contradictions by definition to exist?

Would that not then imply that logical contradictions do not exist?

[kenshikenji]

But is it not that no logical contradictions exist in your theory because your theory prohibits logical contradictions by definition to exist?

Would that not then imply that logical contradictions do not exist?

i mean i see no logical inconsistencies in my theory. since i carefully constructed the definition set to be explicitly consistent.  

[Guest Gee]

i mean i see no logical inconsistencies in my theory. since i carefully constructed the definition set to be explicitly consistent.  

 

I agree that by accepting your denition set there are no contradictions but that is because your definition set prohibits any and all logical inconsistancies from existing by virtue of redefining subjective as having all the properties of objective. So it is not that your theory is logically consistant but by accepting your premise then all logical inconsistancy is by impossible by definition.

[kenshikenji]

I agree that by accepting your denition set there are no contradictions but that is because your definition set prohibits any and all logical inconsistancies from existing by virtue of redefining subjective as having all the properties of objective. So it is not that your theory is logically consistant but by accepting your premise then all logical inconsistancy is by impossible by definition.

you seem to be confused like stefan is about logic.  if my definition set is logically consistent, that doesnt mean im manipulating logic itself.  logic is impossible to manipulate. it is a structure of nature.  you can change definition and the terms that reference them but logic is immutable by the mind.  a theory is composed of starting definition and reasoning.  there can be logical error in both those components because a theory is basically an argument containing three essential parts. the definition set, the premises, and the reasoning and conclusions.  each of which can have logical problems.  having a consistent definition set is only one possible area that may contain logical inconsistencies.  in no way is a logically consistent definiton set sufficient to guarantee a logically consistent theory.  BUT it is a necessary condition.  

 

again, i know the definition set is consistent, since i carefully used quantitative definition which is the most precise you can get.  but my theory could have other logical errors which i do not see at the moment, and even if it does, its a much more comprehensive value theory than anything ive come across. so your argument is invalid.

[Guest Gee]

But i've accepted your definition set so my argument is not invalid because it cant be invalid, nothing can be invalid.

[kenshikenji]

But i've accepted your definition set so my argument is not invalid because it cant be invalid, nothing can be invalid.

no, your arguments are invalid because their reasoning is faulty.  not because its impossible to prove me wrong.  ive made specific arguments why your arguments were invalid. i did not invalidate them just from declaration or a mere claim. i made arguments.  your analogies were misplaced and you werent using my definition set. and even if you do accept my definition set, you have not presented another arguments since your analogy to the even and odd functions.  

 

dont tell me that im telling you that it is impossible to prove me wrong. but you have yet to deduce any contradiction or even show where my theory fails in evaluating any value.

[Guest Gee]

no, your arguments are invalid because their reasoning is faulty.  not because its impossible to prove me wrong.  ive made specific arguments why your arguments were invalid. i did not invalidate them just from declaration or a mere claim. i made arguments.  your analogies were misplaced and you werent using my definition set. and even if you do accept my definition set, you have not presented another arguments since your analogy to the even and odd functions.  

 

dont tell me that im telling you that it is impossible to prove me wrong. but you have yet to deduce any contradiction or even show where my theory fails in evaluating any value.

 

Subjective is a subset of objective right? and so has objective properties..... so their validity (ordinal dominance) is equil, so it is possible that something subjectivly true and objectivly false and so logically false using the previous set of denitions can now be both subjectivly true and objectivly false which now means objectivly true and objectivly false at the same time, previously this would be a contradiction but it can't be if your theory is valid so your theory implies contradictions do not exist.

So if contradictions dont exist your theory isn't right or wrong, true or false or valid or invalid because these can't exist if your definitions are accepted.

 

So saying if accept your definitions then your theory is a description of how to bake a cake must be perfectly accurate.

[kenshikenji]

Subjective is a subset of objective right? and so has objective properties..... so their validity (ordinal dominance) is equil, so it is possible that something subjectivly true and objectivly false and so logically false using the previous set of denitions can now be both subjectivly true and objectivly false which now means objectivly true and objectivly false at the same time, previously this would be a contradiction but it can't be if your theory is valid so your theory implies contradictions do not exist.

So if contradictions dont exist your theory isn't right or wrong, true or false or valid or invalid because these can't exist if your definitions are accepted.

 

So saying if accept your definitions then your theory is a description of how to bake a cake must be perfectly accurate.

youre just talking nonsense if you do not cite the definitions you are using.  you are obviously not exclusively working with my definition set. nor do you criticize the actual theory.  you are trying to criticize the definition set.  if youre not going to quote any of my definitions when you use them, then im not going to try to make sense of the nonsense that follows from it.