Working up to the syntax-semantics Duality

Today we reach the sacred heights of the syntax-semantics duality by repeatedly defining the monoids.

Level 1

Definition (first course in algebra): a monoid is a set $M$ equipped with a special element $e$ and a multiplication $m$, such that $e$ is the multiplicative identity, and the multiplication is associative.

The natural numbers, with $+$ and $0$, makes a monoid.

Another example is the string monoid: $M$ is all possible English strings made from the 26 letters, $e$ is the empty string, and $m$ is just putting two strings together.

Emotivism: The argument from self-consistency

I like thought which preserves a whiff of flesh and blood, and I prefer a thousand times an idea rising from sexual tension or nervous depression to an empty abstraction. Haven't people learned yet that the time of superficial intellectual games is over, that agony is infinitely more important than syllogism, that a cry of despair is more revealing than the most subtle thought, and that tears always have deeper roots than smiles?

The problem with some nihilisms, especially epistemological nihilism, is a kind of inconsistency. This kind of inconsistency is not logical inconsistency, but a kind of "personal inconsistency".

Let's see one example: epistemological nihilism.

Epistemological nihilism states that there is no way to know truths. There are various kinds of epistemological nihilism:

• Ontological: truths don't exist;
• Skeptical: there are no methods for us to know the truth;
• Meta skeptical: there are, but we can't know which methods actually work;

The common rejection is this: If you believe in epistemological nihilism, then you believe in something, but that's not justifiable, by epistemological nihilism.

$\omega$-inconsistent life

I was sad and wanted to die, but didn't want to die yet because I would like to think of a good reason to.

I said, "I know that there's a proof of life's meaninglessness, but I'd like to be justified in my belief. So I would kill myself on the next day iff I find a proof of life's meaninglessness."

Let's Read: Homo Deus (2015), by Yuval Noah Harari, Part 2

Part 2: Homo Sapiens Gives Meaning to the World

In this part, we study the history of Sapiens's meaning making, and in particular, the history of humanism. Still nothing new from Sapiens.

Chap 4: The Storytellers

The ancient gods were quite similar to modern companies. 

In ancient Uruk, Lagash and Shurupak the gods functioned as legal entities that could own fields and slaves, give and receive loans, pay salaries and build dams and canals. Since the gods never died, and since they had no children to fight over their inheritance, they gathered more and more property and power. An increasing number of Sumerians found themselves employed by the gods, taking loans from the gods, tilling the gods’ lands and owing taxes and tithes to the gods.

Then, writing and money were invented, allowing efficient bureaucracy, helping these god-companies to grow into Sumerian empires, headed by priest kings. The priest kings were to gods like the CEOs to the companies. The company is powerful, but without a body or mouth, and needs to be represented by CEOs and such.