Injective altruism

[Amorphos]

Injective altruism

here i am going to use mathematic principles, such i hope to better represent what our causal and yet subjective reality is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Injective_function

causality is thought of and described by atheists and science in the main as if like ‘bijectives’ [see link] ~ a one-to-one basis, yet humans and other creatures experience reality subjectively. we perceive qualities as much as the informational values [math/physics kind of values] which are physically received. This makes our experience and existence more akin to ‘injectives’, and causality for living things is not bijective.

So how does altruism come into it,…

think of causality as if your life is like a train on a track, the collection of inherited things and situations denote the nature of the train and in part its journey. Naturally as they roll on down the track there will be junctions/interactions, so there are no singular causal lines as such. However, once one can see how that works e.g. In a given situation, an altruistic act [even if done upon a pretence or order] is causally equal to stepping off one train and onto another. Or perhaps it is more akin to shouting across at a train to warn of impending doom ~ a broken track for example. If we all done altruistic acts because it were denoted by religion or law or whatever reason you have [even downright lies], then surely we would be modifying our causality.

Is it not better to change causality and yield more freedom [to defeat it even], not for religious or societal reasons or some such things, but because the intelligent thing to do in a causal universe is to use causality to change causality. Any random act of altruism will change causality, it doesn’t even matter what reason one uses.

• not sure if robbing banks also does the same thing .

_

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

I was thinking about the same thing last night, but my words were much less convoluted.

Why do you post convoluted wikipedia articles? Wikipedia articles are usually bloated and convoluted.
Here is a quote

In mathematics, an injective function or injection or one-to-one function is a function that preserves distinctness: it never maps distinct elements of its domain to the same element of its codomain. In other words, every element of the function’s codomain is the image of at most one element of its domain. The term one-to-one function must not be confused with one-to-one correspondence (aka bijective function), which uniquely maps all elements in both domain and codomain to each other, (see figures).

Ok, what is an element of a function? Sure, I could google the answer, but I wanted to prove a point, that wikipedia is convoluted. See, wikipedia does not offer a highlighted link to the definition of “element”, even though it provides a highlighted link to everything else.

And the picture they offered doesn’t make any sense either.
X —› B Bn —› B
X —› Z —› X
X —› R —› X Rn —› X
X —› C —› X Cn —› X
The image doesn’t make any sense, and neither do the words, it was probably written by a neckbeard. Let me put it this way, the foreign calculus professor I had who spoke broken english was more expressive than this.
What is the point of a function, if it outputs the same value as the input?

If it never maps distinct elements from the domain to the codomain, then how does it have every element of the domain as an image in the codomain?

Your other points are convoluted as well. Why do you mention altruism, as if it some how needs special mentioning, over any actioning? Are you high? How is causality like a train tracks that you can jump off of? How does an action “change the causality”, since every action you take is all part of causality in the first place?

Space is like a train, consciousness is a the choochoo, but you can’t leave the tracks, because then you’d be dead or outside of your body. At most you can appear to bend the tracks, or have the illusion of choice and choosing forks in the track, with your illusion of free will.

[Amorphos]

What is the point of a function, if it outputs the same value as the input?

what like a TV screen outputs the same as the input? :-" I don’t know why you even said that, because injectives are not 1 to 1.

[Ultimate_Philosophy (Ultimate Philosophy 1001)]

But the wikipedia article is so clear.

“Injectivies, also known as one to one functions…”

The convolusion has reached an all time high in this thread. I think the people who define our language, just want us to waste memory cells devoted to convoluted words that don’t match their definition, or give us words that have multiple meanings and/or share meaning conflicts with other words, just to confuse and irritate us, and make it hard to program AI that understand english.

[Amorphos]

From the same wiki

The term one-to-one function must not be confused with one-to-one correspondence (aka bijective function), which uniquely maps all elements in both domain and codomain to each other, (see figures).

There has to be some part of one aspect of a function to connect a sequence even an infinite one ergo they are similar. This is the fine difference i was making, causality is often seen as, this thing happens then that thing [one to one correspondence like bijectives], when it is sometimes [especially with conscious subjective observers] and overall, more like injectives ~ like chords as opposed to frets on the guitar [which would be akin to bijectives].

Its a simple as the terms imply; bijective is like binary [this then that [2,4,6,8…]] injective, injects a difference into the stream/system/pattern [like the set of prime numbers are injectives [injected into a linear system].

_