Failure of "I".

[TimeSeeker]

Go back to the beginning of life. Though if you're a theist, that believes in the ridiculous story of Adam and Eve as human origin, and ignore all archeological evidence.

Do you recognise the distinction between explanatory and predictive utility? ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf ). The distinction is in the temporal dimension (which many people seem to fail to take into account).

I don't give much of a damn about "believing" anything about the past tense if it doesn't help me predict the future.

We may have knowledge of the past but cannot control it; we may control the future but have no knowledge of it. --Claude E. Shannon

For me - all theories which can explain a lot, but cannot predict anything have equivalent utility. Zero. Evolution falls into that box which I have created for sorting my ideas.

Then there's no use talking to you, because I really don't know how to speak "grabbing crap right out of thin air," then believing even for a second that any sense can be made of it.

Well, your lack of imagination is hardly my problem. Is it?

Here is crap "out of thin air". I want humans to be able to travel between Earth and Mars in under 1 hour. I believe it's theoretically possible, but it will take us a while to develop the technology.

I don't concern myself with our origins very much unless achieving my objective absolutely requires me to.

[uwot]

Well, as I said, you have to strangle him a bit. Do you think 'there is experience' is wrong?

What procedure would I use to tell the difference between right and wrong?

You could try Descartes' 'Method'. Can you deny that there is experience, without experiencing that denial?

Fair enough, we have already established that you accept things on faith.

Indeed. As do all humans. Whether they are in denial bout it or not

Well, that is another thing that you apparently accept on faith.

I was talking about tea, but yes, for the purpose of argument I am ignoring all that, but as I said I accept that all axioms are theory laden.

And since you have multiple theories dealing with the same problem, surely you have a mechanism to select one theory over another?

Depends. Philosophically the choice is aesthetic; scientifically it's instrumental. Either way you can either pick the tool best suited to the job, or use the same hammer for every nail.

For example - we have very many theories of "truth" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth ).

Surely you've chosen at least one of those when going about living in the world? What criteria did you use to CHOOSE your "truth" (religion)?

How would you know if the other truths (religions) aren't better if you haven't tested them for yourself? You know - empirically?

Why do you equate truth with religion?

[TimeSeeker]

You could try Descartes' 'Method'. Can you deny that there is experience, without experiencing that denial?

That depends on the A-PRIORI acceptance or rejection of circular reasoning. Since my very objective is to define what experience is (I don't know yet), I can't determine whether I am "experiencing denial".

Well, that is another thing that you apparently accept on faith.

As you have accepted experience on faith, then justified it with a circular argument?

Either way you can either pick the tool best suited to the job, or use the same hammer for every nail.

That would be terrible analogy. Information has a property a hammer doesn't - precision. You can use information to model things at quantum scale, or you can use information to model things at cosmology scale with incredible precision. A hammer lacks such versatility

Why do you equate truth with religion?

I am satirising a common atheist argument against religion, and bending it a little to work against "truth" also. It goes something like this: "You were born and raised into religion X, then you didn't choose religion X. Since you haven't examined other religions, how did you determine your religion is the right one?". Using the simple rhetorical technique of subject-switch an equivalent argument would be:

"You have been born and raised into theory of truth X, then you didn't choose theory of truth X. Since you haven't examined other theories of truth, how did you determine your theory of truth is the right one?"

Any possibility of choice requires a-priory selection criteria.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Go back to the beginning of life. Though if you're a theist, that believes in the ridiculous story of Adam and Eve as human origin, and ignore all archeological evidence.

Do you recognise the distinction between explanatory and predictive utility? ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf ). The distinction is in the temporal dimension (which many people seem to fail to take into account).
Everything I just said was all about the temporal dimension. That's where the concept of a-priori and a-posteriori live. It's all about sequence my friend!


I don't give much of a damn about "believing" anything about the past tense if it doesn't help me predict the future.
And I don't give a damn about what you give a damn about. And if you want to "believe" in leprechauns because you want to predict a pot o gold at the end of a rainbow, that's your problem. I only care about facts my friend and to me "All" "Facts" matter. That is if you care to have an absolutely true picture of the universe. Of course some are perfectly content on having visions of faeries and goblins in their heads.

We may have knowledge of the past but cannot control it; we may control the future but have no knowledge of it. --Claude E. Shannon

For me - all theories which can explain a lot, but cannot predict anything have equivalent utility. Zero. Evolution falls into that box which I have created for sorting my ideas.
Then I'd say you were a fool. As there is no such thing as a crystal ball my friend. The universe only ever changes, it never remains static, thus no one can predict anything other than probabilities and possibilities. And the past is the only thing that can inform such things, the problem is in nailing it down with certainty.

Then there's no use talking to you, because I really don't know how to speak "grabbing crap right out of thin air," then believing even for a second that any sense can be made of it.

Well, your lack of imagination is hardly my problem. Is it?
No you have it backwards, it's your imagination that is your problem! And if forever set in those ways, no one shall be able to help you, ever.


Here is crap "out of thin air". I want humans to be able to travel between Earth and Mars in under 1 hour. I believe it's theoretically possible, but it will take us a while to develop the technology.
I believe, not so much out of thin air, that you're a crack-pot, but does that make it necessarily true? I mean you just might be smoking some really good pot or taking some other nice hallucinogen. But as journey said: "Don't stop believing," no matter if the white jacket they put you in, buckles in the back, along with the sleeves. Hey, see how far you can bounce off the walls, maybe that can propel you to mars in under an hour.


I don't concern myself with our origins very much unless achieving my objective absolutely requires me to.
Fair enough!

You seem a little hair brained, but I do really like your spunk, honestly! I absolutely love feisty people!

Here's to seeing you on Mars in a hour.

[TimeSeeker]

Go back to the beginning of life. Though if you're a theist, that believes in the ridiculous story of Adam and Eve as human origin, and ignore all archeological evidence.

Do you recognise the distinction between explanatory and predictive utility? ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf ). The distinction is in the temporal dimension (which many people seem to fail to take into account).
Everything I just said was all about the temporal dimension. That's where the concept of a-priori and a-posteriori live. It's all about sequence my friend!


I don't give much of a damn about "believing" anything about the past tense if it doesn't help me predict the future.
And I don't give a damn about what you give a damn about. And if you want to "believe" in leprechauns because you want to predict a pot o gold at the end of a rainbow, that's your problem. I only care about facts my friend and to me "All" "Facts" matter. That is if you care to have an absolutely true picture of the universe. Of course some are perfectly content on having visions of faeries and goblins in their heads.

We may have knowledge of the past but cannot control it; we may control the future but have no knowledge of it. --Claude E. Shannon

For me - all theories which can explain a lot, but cannot predict anything have equivalent utility. Zero. Evolution falls into that box which I have created for sorting my ideas.
Then I'd say you were a fool. As there is no such thing as a crystal ball my friend. The universe only ever changes, it never remains static, thus no one can predict anything other than probabilities and possibilities. And the past is the only thing that can inform such things, the problem is in nailing it down with certainty.

Then there's no use talking to you, because I really don't know how to speak "grabbing crap right out of thin air," then believing even for a second that any sense can be made of it.

Well, your lack of imagination is hardly my problem. Is it?
No you have it backwards, it's your imagination that is your problem! And if forever set in those ways, no one shall be able to help you, ever.


Here is crap "out of thin air". I want humans to be able to travel between Earth and Mars in under 1 hour. I believe it's theoretically possible, but it will take us a while to develop the technology.
I believe, not so much out of thin air, that you're a crack-pot, but does that make it necessarily true? I mean you just might be smoking some really good pot or taking some other nice hallucinogen. But as journey said: "Don't stop believing," no matter if the white jacket they put you in, buckles in the back, along with the sleeves. Hey, see how far you can bounce off the walls, maybe that can propel you to mars in under an hour.


I don't concern myself with our origins very much unless achieving my objective absolutely requires me to.
Fair enough!

You seem a little hair brained, but I do really like your spunk, honestly! I absolutely love feisty people!

Here's to seeing you on Mars in a hour.

I don't care to have an "absolutely true" picture of the universe. Nor is it possible without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Maxwell's demon). Unless, of course, you reject the laws of thermodynamics and have a better theory to replace them, in which case - I am all ears! I will even pay you for your knowledge.

I want a good enough approximation of the universe. Just enough for me to get to Mars in under an hour. Probabilities and possibilities are perfectly fine to this end (despite your 'nailing it down with certainty' sentiment)

There is much you don't know and I don't care to teach you First hint and only. You have pre-supposed the arrow of time (using words like 'sequence', 'past' and 'backwards') even though no law of physics mandates it, and especially since quantum teleportation violates it.

Prediction/change is not always in respect to time. It can be in respect to anything deterministic (anti-entropic). Like entanglement; or time-crystals.

Go argue about leperchauns with a straw man in a cornfield.

[uwot]

You could try Descartes' 'Method'. Can you deny that there is experience, without experiencing that denial?

That depends on the A-PRIORI acceptance or rejection of circular reasoning. Since my very objective is to define what experience is (I don't know yet), I can't determine whether I am "experiencing denial".

Well, if you ever come up with a definition of experience that excludes all sensory perception and all cerebral activity, allowing for any hypothesis according to which the sensory organs and cerebral cortex are illusory, then you will have an issue. Descartes was hampered by language on the one hand, and writing for a popular audience on the other. Cogito/je pense/I think, is just the affirmation that at some level there is existence of some sort, and it cannot be asserted without it necessarily being true. Whether or not you are "experiencing denial" if 'you' are reading this, then necessarily there is some sort of experience. That is not a priori, it is the fundamental empirical fact and has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

Well, that is another thing that you apparently accept on faith.

As you have accepted experience on faith, then justified it with a circular argument?

No, I have accepted experience on experience.

Either way you can either pick the tool best suited to the job, or use the same hammer for every nail.

That would be terrible analogy. Information has a property a hammer doesn't - precision. You can use information to model things at quantum scale, or you can use information to model things at cosmology scale with incredible precision. A hammer lacks such versatility

There are different types of hammer.

Why do you equate truth with religion?

I am satirising a common atheist argument against religion, and bending it a little to work against "truth" also. It goes something like this: "You were born and raised into religion X, then you didn't choose religion X. Since you haven't examined other religions, how did you determine your religion is the right one"". Using the simple rhetorical technique of subject-switch an equivalent argument becomes:

"You have been born and raised into theory of truth X, then you didn't choose theory of truth X. Since you haven't examined other theories of truth, how did you determine your theory of truth is the right one?"

You need to work on your satire.

[TimeSeeker]

Well, if you ever come up with a definition of experience

I don't care to 'define' it. The models from information theory/computer science work. I use them.

That is not a priori, it is the fundamental empirical fact and has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

So you DO accept things on faith? Just because you've called them 'fundamental facts' doesn't change their axiomatic nature. Glad you are finally honest with yourself

No, I have accepted experience on experience.

Yes. Without prior evidence - on faith. It's all equivocal. Again - glad you have come to your senses and recognised your axiomatic beliefs. You trust your senses - fine I do too.

There are different types of hammer.

None that can 'nail down' the universe.

You need to work on your satire.

So you CHOOSE to deflect the question with a red herring, eh?

I am going to re-state it then: What a priori criteria did you use to CHOOSE your theory of truth?

Unless you care to answer it, I don't care to engage you any further

I'll tell you how I chose mine (based on pragmatism with my own, custom tweaks based on systems theory, complexity theory, information theory, decision theory etc.). It works. By my own standards for utility.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Do you recognise the distinction between explanatory and predictive utility? ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/1101.0891.pdf ). The distinction is in the temporal dimension (which many people seem to fail to take into account).
Everything I just said was all about the temporal dimension. That's where the concept of a-priori and a-posteriori live. It's all about sequence my friend!


I don't give much of a damn about "believing" anything about the past tense if it doesn't help me predict the future.
And I don't give a damn about what you give a damn about. And if you want to "believe" in leprechauns because you want to predict a pot o gold at the end of a rainbow, that's your problem. I only care about facts my friend and to me "All" "Facts" matter. That is if you care to have an absolutely true picture of the universe. Of course some are perfectly content on having visions of faeries and goblins in their heads.


For me - all theories which can explain a lot, but cannot predict anything have equivalent utility. Zero. Evolution falls into that box which I have created for sorting my ideas.
Then I'd say you were a fool. As there is no such thing as a crystal ball my friend. The universe only ever changes, it never remains static, thus no one can predict anything other than probabilities and possibilities. And the past is the only thing that can inform such things, the problem is in nailing it down with certainty.



Well, your lack of imagination is hardly my problem. Is it?
No you have it backwards, it's your imagination that is your problem! And if forever set in those ways, no one shall be able to help you, ever.


Here is crap "out of thin air". I want humans to be able to travel between Earth and Mars in under 1 hour. I believe it's theoretically possible, but it will take us a while to develop the technology.
I believe, not so much out of thin air, that you're a crack-pot, but does that make it necessarily true? I mean you just might be smoking some really good pot or taking some other nice hallucinogen. But as journey said: "Don't stop believing," no matter if the white jacket they put you in, buckles in the back, along with the sleeves. Hey, see how far you can bounce off the walls, maybe that can propel you to mars in under an hour.


I don't concern myself with our origins very much unless achieving my objective absolutely requires me to.
Fair enough!

You seem a little hair brained, but I do really like your spunk, honestly! I absolutely love feisty people!

Here's to seeing you on Mars in a hour.

I don't care to have an "absolutely true" picture of the universe. Nor is it possible without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Maxwell's demon). Unless, of course, you reject the laws of thermodynamics and have a better theory to replace them, in which case - I am all ears! I will even pay you for your knowledge.
Well that rubs me the wrong way as I absolutely hate the concept of money, and I believe that all knowledge should be freely available to everyone. Imagine where we'd be if that were true? Much better off certainly.


I want a good enough approximation of the universe. Just enough for me to get to Mars in under an hour. Probabilities and possibilities are perfectly fine to this end
Of course, that's all you have.


There is much you don't know and I don't care to teach you
Same thing to you, just a different arena! But I did take intro to physics in college, and passed too. I just don't work with it so probably forgot more than they taught me. But then who really cares. "We've all got time enough to die, everybodies worrying..." Chicago!

First hint and only. You have pre-supposed the arrow of time (sequence) even though no law of physics mandates it, and especially since quantum teleportation violates it.
Sorry, I see much of quantum mechanics as mumbo jumbo! As soon as I heard about the double slit experiment, and Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, I saw the leading edge of science in physics for what it always is when it's on the leading edge, simply theoretical, thus just so much illusory bullshit.

Prediction/change is not always in respect to time. It can be in respect to anything deterministic (anti-entropic). Like entanglement; or time-crystals.
Planet Zenon, calling planet Zenon, please beam me up, as there's no intelligent life on planet earth... Sorry I just don't buy the crap! More power to you, that you buy it though. I'll get the same thing from fantasy novels.


Go argue about leperchauns with a straw man in a cornfield.
He said, using a straw man argument!

[TimeSeeker]

Oh, but you DO buy it! And quite literally at that.

I bet you are paying for internet access (applied Information theory) - seeming as we are on an INTERNET forum. Which runs on COMPUTERS (more information theory).
I bet you've probably used Google or Apple devices, which rely on machine learning algorithms. Which are optimised using this quantum computers (you know - that 'theoretical illusionary bullshit').

Good thing you hate the concept of money. People like me like people like you - thank you for paying for our lifestyle

Nothing like being completely oblivious of your own performative contradictions.

[uwot]

Well, if you ever come up with a definition of experience

I don't care to 'define' it. The models from information theory/computer science work. I use them.

Fair enough. So what are these models of experience?

That is not a priori, it is the fundamental empirical fact and has nothing to do with circular reasoning.

So you DO accept things on faith? Just because you've called them 'fundamental facts' doesn't change their axiomatic nature. Glad you are finally honest with yourself

Descartes, as I'm sure you appreciate, was a mathematician as much as he was a philosopher. He was hoping to create an axiomatic philosophy, for which he would need a logically sound axiom. He came up with 'I think therefore I am' which, as I have said, reduces to 'there is experience'. It is logically flawless, because it cannot be stated without it necessarily been true. In other words, you do not have to accept it on faith for the simple reason that the moment you utter it, it is true.

No, I have accepted experience on experience.

Yes. Without prior evidence - on faith.

No, the experience is the evidence.

It's all equivocal. Again - glad you have come to your senses and recognised your axiomatic beliefs. You trust your senses - fine I do too.

Well, I rely on them, but I know they can be fooled.

I am going to re-state it then: What a priori criteria did you use to CHOOSE your theory of truth?

Did I say I have a theory of truth?

Unless you care to answer it, I don't care to engage you any further

Suit yourself.

I'll tell you how I chose mine (based on pragmatism with my own, custom tweaks based on systems theory, complexity theory, information theory, decision theory etc.). It works. By my own standards for utility.

Have a look at this forum; there is a whole bunch of stuff that works by personal standards for utility.

[TimeSeeker]

Descartes, as I'm sure you appreciate, was a mathematician as much as he was a philosopher. He was hoping to create an axiomatic philosophy, for

Too bad all axiomatic systems break to the problem of regress. Axioms can't be justified - they can only be accepted. And so whenI say "I compute therefore I am" - I am already aware that I am committing to a claim that I can't justify axiomatically.

But at least we have a theory of computation... and so I can explain what I mean by "compute".

No, the experience is the evidence.

So you pre-suppose a-priori knowledge of what evidence is now? Make up your mind. What are you are starting with ?

Well, I rely on them, but I know they can be fooled.

Of course. So we model/systemize "thinking" to use as guard rails (error reduction). I use information theory to build models of my mind. That I can run in computers.

Did I say I have a theory of truth?

You have some mechanism for making choices/decisions when you are faced with multiple options. I call that a "value system". You don't have to call it that. You don't even have to conceptualise it like I do, but to reject its existence would be to deny your ability to make choices.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass

[uwot]

Too bad all axiomatic systems break to the problem of regress. Axioms can't be justified - they can only be accepted.

That is precisely what makes Descartes' axiom special; you cannot coherently say or think 'experience' without there being an experience.

[TimeSeeker]

That is precisely what makes Descartes' axiom special; you cannot coherently say or think 'experience' without there being an experience.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading

My axiom is more special than yours. It's grounded in physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

[uwot]

My axiom is more special than yours. It's grounded in physics.

It's not my axiom, but anyway, what's is your extra special axiom?

[TimeSeeker]

My axiom is more special than yours. It's grounded in physics.

It's not my axiom, but anyway, what's is your extra special axiom?

I gave you the link