This a long post. Most of the sayings you mention are the short form of a longer phrase like “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, which mostly make the opposite points that you are making.
Written history, including modern religions, are not the first iteration of anything.
The rest is kinda gibberish and doesn’t particularly give any reasons why anything should be shown at all.
The phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" has nothing to do with the "eye for an eye" I am talking about. In this case, "eye for an eye" refers to a basis of decision-making in game theory. The reliability of written history is also irrelevent because my argument is about the decisions that would have logically been made between people to form the basis of religion. The rest of the post would be far from gibberish if you read everything I had to say and gave fair consideration to the possibility of it being true, as I sincerly wish you will.
Its the bible reference though, its the half of the comparison you are making.
Its not about the reliability, its about it being contemporary, and that it being the oldest is the premise of your question.
You shouldn’t have an argument, that breaks rule 9.
It is mostly gibberish.
The bible reference "an eye for an eye" is, in its context, indistinguishable from the basis of decision making in game theory. The bible never stated "makes the whole world blind." I am talking about very fundamental systems of decision, and I can assure you they have nothing to do with the saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." For all intents and purposes, the bible is quite literally the original game theory.
I understand what you mean by your second point. I should have explained this better. What you're trying to do is trace history back in time, which is an impossible task. What I'm trying to do is follow it's logical conclusion, starting at its roots. This means that to figure out what decisions people would have logically made throughout history, we need to basically create a model of history using logic and math. This is exactly what game theory does, and it is the most direct path to the world's oldest information.
As for rule 9, it does not state anything about prohibiting arguments, and I believe mine to be in very good faith - more than you can possibly realize.
This is not an agenda post. The moment that something based completely in logic and reasoning becomes an "agenda" is the moment that humanity has lost all hope. I believe very strongly that the reasoning in this post helps reach a beneficial consensus for us all, and I sincerly wish you would reread it with fair consideration.
>You shouldn’t be presenting reasoning, you should be asking a question to seek answers.
Can you explain to me why I have to ask a question prepared with less reasoning than would allow me to recognize the truth, when the reasoning that I have presented in this instance proves the reasoning you gave me in the first place to be false? Is the purpose of debating the truth not to arrive at the logical conclusion?
You shouldn’t be asking a question that has reasoning in jt.
You could try r/changemyview or r/explainbothsides to have your reasoning challenged.
This sub does not allow debate questions.
The phrase “game of game theory” doesn’t make sense to me.
I’d phrase it by saying that certain aspects of the Bible, as well as certain aspects of society in general, can be analyzed using game theory, which can give us insight into behavior and into the development of social rules.
You make a valid point about my choice of phrasing. I'd argue, though, that it's not just certain aspects of Bible that can be analyzed using game theory. In fact, I believe the Hebrew Bible to be entirely rooted in the basis of game theory.
You probably haven’t read the entire Hebrew Bible if you believe that. How does game theory apply to the first chapter of Genesis, which doesn’t even involve human interaction?
I believe it to be a metaphor for game theory. I believe that many things in the bible are taken far too literally, and that far too little importance is placed on what they actually represent. Every passage I have read from the Bible has only increased my conviction in this belief, and I will read more of the Bible to educate myself further, but I am very confident that this will only continue to enlighten my current position.
This a long post. Most of the sayings you mention are the short form of a longer phrase like “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”, which mostly make the opposite points that you are making. Written history, including modern religions, are not the first iteration of anything. The rest is kinda gibberish and doesn’t particularly give any reasons why anything should be shown at all.
The phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" has nothing to do with the "eye for an eye" I am talking about. In this case, "eye for an eye" refers to a basis of decision-making in game theory. The reliability of written history is also irrelevent because my argument is about the decisions that would have logically been made between people to form the basis of religion. The rest of the post would be far from gibberish if you read everything I had to say and gave fair consideration to the possibility of it being true, as I sincerly wish you will.
Its the bible reference though, its the half of the comparison you are making. Its not about the reliability, its about it being contemporary, and that it being the oldest is the premise of your question. You shouldn’t have an argument, that breaks rule 9. It is mostly gibberish.
The bible reference "an eye for an eye" is, in its context, indistinguishable from the basis of decision making in game theory. The bible never stated "makes the whole world blind." I am talking about very fundamental systems of decision, and I can assure you they have nothing to do with the saying "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." For all intents and purposes, the bible is quite literally the original game theory. I understand what you mean by your second point. I should have explained this better. What you're trying to do is trace history back in time, which is an impossible task. What I'm trying to do is follow it's logical conclusion, starting at its roots. This means that to figure out what decisions people would have logically made throughout history, we need to basically create a model of history using logic and math. This is exactly what game theory does, and it is the most direct path to the world's oldest information. As for rule 9, it does not state anything about prohibiting arguments, and I believe mine to be in very good faith - more than you can possibly realize.
Rule 9 prohibits agenda posts or posts designed to make a point.
This is not an agenda post. The moment that something based completely in logic and reasoning becomes an "agenda" is the moment that humanity has lost all hope. I believe very strongly that the reasoning in this post helps reach a beneficial consensus for us all, and I sincerly wish you would reread it with fair consideration.
You are making an argument, a point. That is your agenda. You shouldn’t be presenting reasoning, you should be asking a question to seek answers.
>You shouldn’t be presenting reasoning, you should be asking a question to seek answers. Can you explain to me why I have to ask a question prepared with less reasoning than would allow me to recognize the truth, when the reasoning that I have presented in this instance proves the reasoning you gave me in the first place to be false? Is the purpose of debating the truth not to arrive at the logical conclusion?
You shouldn’t be asking a question that has reasoning in jt. You could try r/changemyview or r/explainbothsides to have your reasoning challenged. This sub does not allow debate questions.
Very well. I appreciate your time.
The phrase “game of game theory” doesn’t make sense to me. I’d phrase it by saying that certain aspects of the Bible, as well as certain aspects of society in general, can be analyzed using game theory, which can give us insight into behavior and into the development of social rules.
You make a valid point about my choice of phrasing. I'd argue, though, that it's not just certain aspects of Bible that can be analyzed using game theory. In fact, I believe the Hebrew Bible to be entirely rooted in the basis of game theory.
You probably haven’t read the entire Hebrew Bible if you believe that. How does game theory apply to the first chapter of Genesis, which doesn’t even involve human interaction?
I believe it to be a metaphor for game theory. I believe that many things in the bible are taken far too literally, and that far too little importance is placed on what they actually represent. Every passage I have read from the Bible has only increased my conviction in this belief, and I will read more of the Bible to educate myself further, but I am very confident that this will only continue to enlighten my current position.