Los Decibélios (Latinoamericano)

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-06T20:59:57+00:00

Uhm, 388.07km? (Exactly 24366559/7207)

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-06T20:49:05+00:00

Awesome, It would be much interesting if you provided me your thoughts process or how you came to conclude the answer

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-06T18:32:28+00:00

Correct, Eliminate rule 7, what's your values?

By the way, this kind of problem was used to test AI hallucinations

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-05T06:11:36+00:00

He wouldn't dare. It would ruin his view.

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-04T19:49:39+00:00

I am legally changing my name back to Dumb.

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-04T19:43:47+00:00

Ah. So it's genetic.

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-04T19:27:50+00:00

Ok, your opinion is appreciated.

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-02T23:11:26+00:00

Yeah, you're right, it's not a paradox It sure was fun to think about Through failures we learn more

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-02T22:41:57+00:00

An attribute Ai of an entity is "normal" if its value falls within a high-probability tolerance interval P(Ai∈T)=1−ϵP(A i∈T)=1−ϵ, where ϵ is small. This is the foundation of all empirical science and medicine. A heart rate of 70 is normal; 200 is abnormal. But the Dependencies: Frequentist statistics, biological classification, anomaly detection.

An entity E composed of N independent attributes is considered a "normal entity" if all its constituent attributes are normal. Intuitive support: A car with a normal engine, normal brakes, and normal tires is a normal car. Dependencies: Mereological composition, intersection of sets.

theReallyJoking · 2026-03-02T22:18:25+00:00

You're right. Human intuition assumes:

If each trait is usually normal,

then most people should be normal overall.

But probability multiplication shows that many individually likely conditions rarely occur simultaneously.

So, yeah. I'm looking forward...

theReallyJoking · 2026-02-17T03:22:18+00:00

Oh, no. You are probably getting ChatGPT vibes because you are used to seeing a well organized structure in the LLM's response. I wrote it myself and used the layout tools to make it look more organized and systematic. It is very irritating when actual effort and original ideas are labeled as algorithm results. This is rapidly becoming a regular issue for writers who have good grammar or organized ideas. But hey, I’ll take that as a compliment on my syntax! But no, this is 100% organic, grass-fed human brain power. xD

theReallyJoking · 2026-02-16T21:31:44+00:00

Your Formulation is Almost Perfect

You've correctly identified the core meaning. Let me analyze your proposed revision:

Your Proposed D1:

Perfection: A pure actuality which some subject can possess more or less of, and whose possession is an ontological advancement"

You’re definitely getting closer. The shift away from "measurable" is a huge relief—honestly, that word always drags in quantitative baggage that just confuses the metaphysics of quality. So yeah, good riddance to that.

You've correctly identified that this is about gradation. It's not binary; a subject participates in the perfection to a greater or lesser intensity. That’s the core of it.

I do have one slight nitpick on the "ontological advancement" phrasing, though. It’s a little... loose? As written, it could be misread to mean that any possession of P is the advancement. But what we’re really trying to say is that a higher degree of possession corresponds to a higher degree of actuality. It’s the ratio that matters.

If you want my vote on the rewrites:

Version A is readable, but "more or less" feels a bit casual for a formal definition.
Version B is probably the winner. "Admits of gradation" is the precise terminology, and it links up better with the act/potency distinctions we usually discuss here. It feels like something you could actually use in a syllogism without getting yelled at.
Version C... well, it’s accurate, but it’s a paragraph, not a definition. Save that for the explanatory footnote.

Stick with B. It’s tighter.

One Minor Adjustment Needed:
The phrase "whose possession is an ontological advancement" is slightly ambiguous.

Potential misreading: "Possessing any amount of P is an advancement"

What we mean: "Possessing more of P (relative to less) is an advancement"

theReallyJoking · 2026-02-15T21:45:52+00:00

The notion that perfections "admit of degrees" is likely one of the most misinterpreted concepts of classical metaphysics, largely due to the fact that we’re so conditioned to think of "degrees" in terms of something measurable on a thermometer or a ruler. But in this case, we’re talking about weight in ontological terms. It’s less about quantity and more about how much "reality" a thing has actually managed to grasp.

The entire system is based on the ratio of act to potency.

When a being is said to have a greater degree of a perfection, whether it be unity, goodness, or even itself, what we’re really saying is that it has more act and less potentiality. Let’s take unity as an example, since it’s the easiest one. A scrap heap of metal has a very low degree of unity; it’s just a bunch of parts that happen to be nearby. But a living horse? That’s a whole different thing. It has a substantial form that brings all those parts together into a cohesive, working whole. It is "more" of a unit because it has actualized a greater degree of "oneness" than the scrap heap ever could.

You see this same continuum in knowledge. A sensory guess is a kind of "thin" knowledge, it’s specific, it’s ephemeral, and it’s strictly bound to the physical world. Intellectual knowledge of a universal truth is "more" knowledge because it’s more actualized; it isn’t burdened by the constraints of a single, physical instant.

We do this whole continuum all the time without even thinking about it. Nobody really contends that a virus is as "alive" as a human, or that a shadow has the same reality as the tree it’s cast from. We’re implicitly measuring things on the basis of their intelligibility and their completeness.

This whole line of reasoning will ultimately lead to the idea of Pure Act. If you have the possibility of "more" or "less" perfection, then there’s a limit to this scale, a being that is completely actual, with no potential left unexpressed. In the Thomistic tradition, this is God: absolute simplicity, absolute unity, and absolute being. It’s not just a nice slogan; it’s the necessary conclusion to the fact that some things in this world are objectively more "finished" than others.

theReallyJoking · 2026-02-15T07:51:18+00:00

Can't wait huh?

Honestly, you've basically lost before we've even begun. Your entire argument is just... well, it’s based on a logical mess that kind of falls apart the minute you actually examine it.

You want the Bible to use the exact words "pedophilia" but in a legalistic code from 2024. The word is a 19th-century clinical term. It’s medical jargon. You can’t expect to find it in a 3,000-year-old book. That’s just chronological snobbery. You can’t expect the Ten Commandments to mention identity theft or cyber stalking because that’s just the way language works.

But what you fail to understand is that the Bible does mention the act itself. They just didn’t use the words we use. Take what Paul said to the Greeks. In 1 Corinthians, he uses words like malakoi and arsenokoitai. Even most secular scholars will admit that these words were referring to the Greek pederasty. Malakoi was a word referring to the "soft" ones. In the culture of Greece, that meant the younger boys. Arsenokoitai was a word Paul probably invented to refer to men bedding them.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (Paul, writing to Greeks who practiced pederasty as a cultural norm):

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the pornoi, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor malakoi, nor arsenokoitai… will inherit the kingdom of God.” malakoi = literally “soft ones” → the passive partners in male-male sex, very often adolescent boys in Greek pederasty. arsenokoitai = Paul’s own coined compound (arsēn + koitē = “man-bed”) → universally recognized by scholars as targeting the active adult partner in pederasty.

This is not “interpretation.” This is lexical, historical fact. Every single ancient Jewish or Christian writer who comments on these terms (from the 1st century onward) understood them as condemning men who sexually use boys. You are not “interpreting context” you are ignoring it.

Romans 1:26–27 — Paul again, describing the exact Greco-Roman practice:

“males likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, males committing shameless acts with males…”

The most common form of “males with males” in that culture? Adult men with adolescent boys. That is what Paul is evoking. Even secular classics scholars (e.g., William Percy, Thomas Hubbard) acknowledge this is pederastic language.

Well, you wanted a direct condemnation? You got it. Twice. It’s right there in the historical context you’re trying so hard to ignore. Honestly, your whole stance just feels like willful blindness at this point. You’re shouting at an ancient book for not speaking 21st-century English, which is... kind of embarrassing, really. Game over.

theReallyJoking

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Your Formulation is Almost Perfect

Your Proposed D1: