If the universe is a Quantum Computer It is not circular. it is recursive.
Yes, but there can be an objective conception of 'conception'. Through social consensus! Creation
If you can't tell the difference between 'circular' and 'recursive' - you are wronger than wrong.When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
I think most people don't automatically assume that the universe is a quantum computer (and even in that case, an IT worldview wouldn't necessarily be recursive).TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:27 amIf the universe is a Quantum Computer It is not circular. it is recursive.
More like physical information is a description of the universe. Shannon information is more like a way to organize physical information, it's an abstraction about physical system.Information Theory is just our DESCRIPTION of the universe in the language of Mathematics.
It is still Logocentrism, but it doesn't matter, because it is more precise than the English description.
This is the human condition.
The cognitive framework itself, in which recursion occurs, is the one that's ultimately always circular. All we can do is try to come up with the best circular framework, that best describes everything about the known world.Yes, but there can be an objective conception of 'conception'. Through social consensus! Creation
Again. You are mixing up the distinction between 'circular' and 'recursive'.
I will leave you with Assimov's wisdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
If you can't tell the difference between 'circular' and 'recursive' - you are wronger than wrong.
Mine is. And it works
In a constructivist epistemology it's the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology
According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.
I don't care what the universe IS. The IS is an illusion. By the time you utter that word the IS has changed to something else. I don't care about the "ultimate reason" either. In this universe explorers/tourists die. Creators survive.
Philosophers spend their time saying what things ARE. They are historians really. The universe has no language.
It is recursive, not circular. If it was circular - you would be uttering no words. Circularity converges to nothing.
It certainly works in IT, but computers are specifically built to make it work.
Well that's just epistemology, philosophy of science.In a constructivist epistemology it's the same thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct ... istemology
"Creators" also die, or are you after immortality now. And of course there is always change.I don't care what the universe IS. The IS is an illusion. By the time you utter that word the IS has changed to something else. I don't care about the "ultimate reason" either. In this universe explorers/tourists die. Creators survive.
I think you equate all philosophers with bad philosophers.Philosophers spend their time saying what things ARE. They are historians really. The universe has no language.
Yeah except the Internet, Google, programming languages are all running on hardware that was specifically built to be compatible with Information theory and its applications. You really don't see the circularity in this?Language is a human invention. But if you care about the correspondence theory of truth on any level whatsoever you will try mighty hard to create a language whose structure can mimic the structure of reality.
And I am 'saying' that the universe IS information and the language of the universe is information. Only the language in which I am expressing this sentiment is my work. I've helped engineer The Internet, Google, Programming languages. My creation speaks for me
Words are for communicating with people
Except the circles are so huge and difficult to notice, that most people never realize it. They only see a part of it which seems linear, and then some of them develop recursion out of such a part.It is recursive, not circular. If it was circular - you would be uttering no words. Circularity converges to nothing.
Yeah but computers WORK in REALITY.
Bullshit dichotomy. All human "knowledge" is defective. All defects are not equally bad. My toaster burning toast sucks, my parachute not opening sucks a lot more.
No. Just you.
The recursion. Not the circularity.
Indeed. That is what I am pointing out t you. You think linearity is bad. I think circular is bad. I think linearity and circularity is bad!
Yeah they work in reality because they were specifically built for computation. Do you really work in IT?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:45 amYeah but computers WORK in REALITY.
The theory of computation, written in the language of Mathematics came before actual, working computers.
100 years ago the word "computer" meant "a human who computes". It is was a verb not a noun!
Recursion
Both are pretty defective for ontology, so why you so obsessed with them.Bullshit dichotomy. All human "knowledge" is defective. All defects are not equally bad. My toaster burning toast sucks, my parachute not opening sucks a lot more.
Projection?No. Just you.
Circularity, not recursion.The recursion. Not the circularity.
Computation was built on the language of Mathematics.
Recursion is worse than both linearity and circularity. Philosophically you can't get anything out of it except self-deception.Indeed. That is what I am pointing out t you. You think linearity is bad. I think circular is bad. I think linearity and circularity is bad!
You are stuck in a circle so big that you yourself can't see it!
Recursion is good.
From recursion you can get to circularity OR linearity. Not the other way around.
Yeah but they wouldn't work if the Mathematical theory (LANGUAGE!!!!!) was WRONG.
No, they aren't you flat Earther! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
No. I am using your arguments as evidence for your reasoning patterns.
OK. I will give you a piece of string ( a line ). Make a circle out of it. You fail basic geometry!
Mathematics describes the world and then calculates based on that, why would a tautology be wrong? Now you hide behide mathematics?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 11:26 am Yeah but they wouldn't work if the Mathematical theory (LANGUAGE!!!!!) was WRONG.
The theory (LANGUAGE) came before the ontology (computer).
And if you ignore this then you need to explain the arrow of time.
I'd say a belief in objectivity falls much more in line with flat earther thinking.No, they aren't you flat Earther! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
Or you simply identifiy philosophers with a single idea in your head, far removed from reality. And when questioned about this you project.No. I am using your arguments as evidence for your reasoning patterns.
Or you, like most people, don't realize that the string doesn't end.OK. I will give you a piece of string ( a line ). Make a circle out of it. You fail basic geometry!
Yes I do. But if we are going to be comitting the "Tu Coque" fallacy allow me to point out that you hide behind English.
But computers do work - which is self-evident! So a working computer that doesn't work is a contradiction
Good thing I don't believe in objectivity, so your argument is a strawman.
According to constructivists, the world is independent of human minds, but knowledge of the world is always a human and social construction.[1] Constructivism opposes the philosophy of objectivism, embracing the belief that a human can come to know the truth about the natural world not mediated by scientific approximations with different degrees of validity and accuracy.
According to constructivists there is no single valid methodology in science, but rather a diversity of useful methods.[2]
Or you are strawmanning me. Because I am demonstrating to you why my idea is better and far more 'real' than yours.
Well, you have realized it. Congratulations! Nobody else has. So until you can show me, or describe to me - in any language, form or medium (video, animation, photos, drawing, painting ) that I CAN UNDERSTAND a "string that doesn't end" I have no fucking clue what you are talking about and I am starting to think that you don't want me to understand.
Just how wrong can you be, really. I'm a nonconceptual thinker. The only "language" I may think in is logic, the rest is dressing. Far simpler then all this nonsense with Information theory. And no, mathematics has no magic power.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 12:31 pmYes I do. But if we are going to be comitting the "Tu Coque" fallacy allow me to point out that you hide behind English.
Between the language of English and Mathematics you are still committing this error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronger_than_wrong
But if you speak Mathematics - just say so and we can give up English.
In fact! You go ahead and propose the language in which this discussion can move along faster.
Since you clearly can't teach it - I will learn it!
Are you admitting your circular reasoning?But computers do work - which is self-evident! So a working computer that doesn't work is a contradiction
No one is holding spoken languages accountable to the laws of logic. But I don't see why English can't be used that way in almost all contexts.I reject them in language. Not in practice. To hold spoken language accountable to the laws of logic is a mistake.
Why is Information theory better than just logic? Why is it much better to overcomplicate and distort things? Why is the abstract more "real" than the concrete?Or you are strawmanning me. Because I am demonstrating to you why my idea is better and far more 'real' than yours.
I guess I missed the demonstration.Human thinking is basically relativistic and therefore circular. Concepts are defined relative to other concepts. You can't escape this no matter what language you use. Just because you don't know this, doesn't mean that no one else does either.Well, you have realized it. Congratulations! Nobody else has. So until you can show me, or describe to me - in any language, form or medium (video, animation, photos, drawing, painting ) that I CAN UNDERSTAND a "string that doesn't end" I have no fucking clue what you are talking about and I am starting to think that you don't want me to understand.
OK. The Truth is a secret!
You seem to prefer the pond of Metaphysics as murky as ink. Which is par for the philosophical course.
And that is PRECISELY the problem I am trying to point out! You think in words/language! That is what I (and a bunch of people before me) call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
That sucks for you then. From the very first link if you Google the word "logic": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
No. I am admitting my recursive reasoning. While you insist on putting words in my mouth.
Because you don't understand the cardinality of logic/logos/language.
Non-sensical. See above. Which logic? Information theory is defined in the Mathematical language of probability theory.
This is your false-belief. I am trying to fix it. Yes - I recognise and agree with you. The problem you are pointing at is called: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problemAtla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:12 pm Human thinking is basically relativistic and therefore circular. Concepts are defined relative to other concepts. You can't escape this no matter what language you use. Just because you don't know this, doesn't mean that no one else does either.
Most people don't see it though, they will just see finite parts, strings, that appear to stand alone.
Information theory is also based on a form of logic, so doesn't that then perfectly refute everything you write?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:22 pmAnd that is PRECISELY the problem I am trying to point out! You think in words/language! That is what I (and a bunch of people before me) call https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logocentrism
I don't even have to make this argument. You are making it for me in your very next statement!
That sucks for you then. From the very first link if you Google the word "logic": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
It comes from the greek "logos" which means "the SPOKEN word". Logic IS language. By mistaking it to mean reason - that is how you fall into the pit of Logocentrism. We have invented VERY MANY languages since the Greeks!
So which logic do you think in?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relevance_logic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_logic
To think there is only one 'logic' (LANGUAGE) is one GIANT mistake!
No. I am admitting my recursive reasoning. While you insist on putting words in my mouth.
Because you don't understand the cardinality of logic/logos/language.
You can make statements about the world in modal logic that you can't make in propositional logic.
You can make statements about the world in temporal logic that you can't make in modal logic.
All logics (languages) are not equally expressive!
Also, because English doesn't encode context English is implicit not explicit.
As per the Chomsky hierarchy it is a Type 1 grammar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy
Non-sensical. See above. Which logic? Information theory is defined in the Mathematical language of probability theory.
The CONCEPT (of information and entropy) exists in my head. And in the heads of many scientists, physicists, software engineers and mathematicians. And that is good enough to call it objective
This is your false-belief. I am trying to fix it. Yes - I recognise and agree with you. The problem you are pointing at is called: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problemAtla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 1:12 pm Human thinking is basically relativistic and therefore circular. Concepts are defined relative to other concepts. You can't escape this no matter what language you use. Just because you don't know this, doesn't mean that no one else does either.
Most people don't see it though, they will just see finite parts, strings, that appear to stand alone.
We have solved it! With programming languages!
Which is the distinction between a language that DEFINES other language (English, spoken word etc.) and language that can INTERPRET itself!
You don't need to define it - it has objective meaning!
In the Chomsky hierarchy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky_h ... _hierarchy )
Programming languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus ) are Type 3 grammars.
Spoken languages are Type 1 grammars
That is why programming languages are better!
The ONLY dualism that we cannot (and we will never be able to) define in language is "right" and "wrong". You understand what those words mean. I understand what they mean. I can't fucking define them! In any language! But we both agree to not harming each other. And so objective morality exists!
No.
You are making no sense. What is the conception of information?TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 30, 2018 2:16 pmNo.
The CONCEPTION (idea) of information came before the DEFINITION of information. The logic (language!) is the EXPRESSION of the CONCEPT.
And it is a CONCEPT so bloody useful, that I am able to destroy 3000 years of philosophy with it.
Is "information" real?
As soon as you come up with a CONCEPT (infinite string) and DEFINE IT IN LANGUAGE that can be turned into theoretical/empirical use by scientists - then information stops being "real". And we will adopt your paradigm.