The Existential Crisis

[Skepdick]

I don't see it as particularly cooperative that you insert and insist on your choice of random axiom without bothering to introduce a reason. You are playing Calvinball.

Yes! I am insisting on a "random axiom". Fucking literally!

I am insisting that we must have NO AXIOMS when we begin reasoning.
I am choosing not to choose an axiom.

My non-choice of non-axiom IS randomness - I am a blank slate.
To you it feels like I am playing "Calvinball" because my non-determinism fucks up YOUR axioms.

It goes by a bunch of names. Entropy. Agnosticism. Non-determinism. Ignorance.

I am literally insisting on the principle of maximum entropy as the departure point when we attempt to assign truth-values to propositions. If you have a better non-axiom to start with, please share it with me - I would like to use it.

Rather than assume a proposition is True OR False, I assume that it is True AND False (or, contra-positively: neither true, nor false).
I am representing my state of knowledge about the truth-value of the proposition as a Qubit

Do you need me to give you a reason for this? OK... here is a reason.

Hypothesis A: X causes Y
Hypothesis B: X does not cause Y

P(A) = 1- P(B) = 0.5.

Which in the English of a 5 year old translates to: I DON'T KNOW!!!!!

Which is a perfectly accurate representation of the "state of affairs".

The entire purpose of "arguing" is for us to design; or examine the design of; some process (any process!), which can sway the probability distribution towards A or B. Your notion of "weak" and "strong" argumentation is fucking moot.

There can be strong/weak evidence for A (against B).
There can be strong/weak evidence for B (against A).

This is empiricism formalised. if you are answering questions that "cannot be answered", if you have somehow collapsed the probability distribution, you are DOING empiricism. You have measured something.

I am being cooperative in attempting to understand the process by which YOU have arrived at an answer - I am trying to understand what it is you are measuring and how.

If YOU can determine the answer to an "indeterminate" question YOU have a process!
If YOU don't have such a process then YOU can't possibly determine the answer to an indeterminate question.

My "egotistical tendencies" (your lame attempt at a dismissive pejorative) completely misses the mark as an insult.
We are doing empiricism - of course it's all about me and my fucking experiences. I am the observer! I am the scientist.

Your continued attempts to remove the human element from the process is as misguided as rawdogging a crackwhore.

The remainder of your points will be addressed either later or never. We'll see...

[FlashDangerpants]

Yes! I am insisting on a "random axiom". Fucking literally!

All the stuff you tried to bust my chops about relates to a single claim made by somebody who is not you and whose inner thinky processes are not yours to insist on. See below...

Here is an argument to justify

So my best and final counter offer is that the standard axioms of philosophy are the established, understood, and sufficient set for discussing the sort of thing this topic is about. They are also assumed within the presented argument, and they are therefore also the relevant set. There may be scope for additions with suffient justification, but the author of the argument under discussion clearly belived it to describe a causal relationship between an outcome and an input, and there is no evidence to suggest that the intended argument would work at all under any assumption that propositions can be simultaneously true and false. Therefore, I do not under any circumstances offer to just remove any of the usual axioms pertinent to the philosophical logics under which the original argument was presented.

Thus, when you are given a claimed cause ¿ of some outcome Ó and this is presented as THE primary cause in ALL cases of Ó, and it is asserted that this is a situation where ¿ MUST be the cause of Ó... that is accurately to be described heretofore as entailing a mirror claim implicitly denying that there is or can be any case of Ó in which ¿ is not the primary casue. Your personal war against Plato notwithstanding, because that is a matter beyond the scope of this discussion.

Thus, if we were to apply maximum entropy, the allowable extent of said entropy is clearly very limited, and full entropy, if such permits any discussion at all, cannot usefully interrogate this or any other argument. That is not a reason for abandoning the concept of argument, it is a reason for not applying something like that principle without demonstrated usefulness to a rational purpose. No, I don't intend to be sidetracked in a define rational or define useful game with you. Similarly, sidelining that with some claim that all arguments are fallacies is far beyond the scope of any discussion that could sanely be described as pertinent to Aquafresh's minimally sentient argument.

So to put it bluntly. The claims made by Aquafresh assume and thus establish a useful set of logics, and in doing so exclude a useless set which would undermine the argument itself unfairly and render any examination of its qualities meaningless in the process. All of the stuff you have sidetracked us with falls in the latter category. The original work here was not presented according to the terms and conditions you are imposing post-hoc.

[Skepdick]

All the stuff you tried to bust my chops about relates to a single claim made by somebody who is not you and whose inner thinky processes are not yours to insist on. See below...

Fucking imbecille - quit strawmanning me.

I am not insisting on a process.

I insist on you describing YOUR process.

So my best and final counter offer is that the standard axioms of philosophy are the established, understood, and sufficient set for discussing the sort of thing this topic is about.

YOU are playing Calvinball.

Fuck YOUR axioms!
Fuck ALL axioms!

The universe we live in is NOT an axiomatic system.

[FlashDangerpants]

All the stuff you tried to bust my chops about relates to a single claim made by somebody who is not you and whose inner thinky processes are not yours to insist on. See below...

Fucking imbecille!

I am not insisting on a process.

I insist on you describing YOUR process.

So my best and final counter offer is that the standard axioms of philosophy are the established, understood, and sufficient set for discussing the sort of thing this topic is about.

YOU are playing Calvinball.

Fuck YOUR axioms!
Fuck ALL axioms!

The universe we live in is NOT an axiomatic system.

Exciting. Well as I already pointed out, the purpose of this thread was for Aquafresh to present this sort of thing called an argument, and to discuss the qualities of said argument according to a established pattern of logic under asumption of which it was contructed and in regard to which these things are tested. If you cannot play the game, pick up your ball and go home.

[Skepdick]

Exciting. Well as I already pointed out, the purpose of this thread was for Aquafresh to present this sort of thing called an argument, and to discuss the qualities of said argument according to a established pattern of logic under asumption of which it was contructed and in regard to which these things are tested. If you cannot play the game, pick up your ball and go home.

Your "established pattern of logic" is classical logic.

I am SHOWING you that it's bullshit.

Quantum logic is epistemology. All premises are True AND false until determined to be True; or False.
We, humans are the things that determine such things.

That's why Science is kicking Philosophy's ass. Your logic is archaic.

Quantum logic is empirical.
Classical logic is not.

Time matters. Classical logic is dead. Linear logic killed it.

[FlashDangerpants]

Exciting. Well as I already pointed out, the purpose of this thread was for Aquafresh to present this sort of thing called an argument, and to discuss the qualities of said argument according to a established pattern of logic under asumption of which it was contructed and in regard to which these things are tested. If you cannot play the game, pick up your ball and go home.

Your "established pattern of logic" is classical logic.

I am SHOWING you that it's bullshit.

And unless you are showing me how that improves without otherwise changing Aquafresh's argument, or how his argument was actually based on it - you are doing so irrationally for this discussion.

The fact that you feel too good for this place is hardly news, I just don't care.

[Skepdick]

And unless you are showing me how that improves without otherwise changing Aquafresh's argument, or how his argument was actually based on it - you are doing so irrationally for this discussion.

I couldn't give a damn about VA's argument.

As far as I am concerned - it's perfect. I accept it.

For the very simple reason that it proposes absolutely no course of action, and so its truth-value is 100% inconsequential.
There is literally no downside to agreeing with him - there's nothing wrong with being wrong.

You pretend like you value your time, but then you invest inordinate amount of it correcting grammatical errors of inconsequential ideas.

idea, noun, a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

VA's argument isn't even an idea!

The fact that you feel too good for this place is hardly news, I just don't care.

I thought this was a Philosophy forum? I was told the goal was to win EVERY argument; or are you going to Calvinball the rules?

If you cannot play the game, pick up your ball and go home.

Or get better at playing "the game" - learn quantum logic.

Beyond the silly language games I benefit if I am less dumb and you benefit if I am less dumb. So be less dumb.

[FlashDangerpants]

And unless you are showing me how that improves without otherwise changing Aquafresh's argument, or how his argument was actually based on it - you are doing so irrationally for this discussion.

I couldn't give a damn about VA's argument.

So much was obvious. The poor fuck didn't seem to realise though.

As far as I am concerned - it's perfect. I accept it.

And as far as you are concerned so is it's negation, yes I get it.

For the very simple reason that it proposes absolutely no course of action, and so its truth-value is 100% inconsequential.
There is literally no downside to agreeing with him - there's nothing wrong with being wrong.

Well, unless there is a god and stuff like this makes him angry.

You pretend like you value your time, but then you invest inordinate amount of it correcting grammatical errors of inconsequential ideas.

idea, noun, a thought or suggestion as to a possible course of action.

VA's argument isn't even an idea!

Under presuppositions of your own, which you just happen to like, and which have no more force than any of the other options, but o which you insist while announcing that you are not insisting. It's just that everybody who doesn't accept your domination is not being cooperative enough.

The fact that you feel too good for this place is hardly news, I just don't care.

I thought this was a Philosophy forum? I was told the goal was to win EVERY argument; or are you going to Calvinball the rules?

Who told you that? Arguments are there to be tested just as scientific theorems are, it's the method of tetsting that you can't get your head around. But just as with a scientific theorem, a philosophical argument is supposed by tradition to be tested to destruction if it can. The point isn't to cheat either in defence or destruction, it's not a win at any cost game. It's also entirely normal if the basic structure of an argument is good, to suggest improvements that might help.

Maybe some of that stuff doesn't happen much here, but this forum is sort of overrun with persons who think they are too good for philosophy.

If you cannot play the game, pick up your ball and go home.

Or get better at playing "the game" - learn quantum logic.

If I did, and you aren't a great advert for it tbh, I wouldn't misuse it as a weapon against philosophy, I would use it for whatever purpose it actually suits. So what is it actually for? You wanna advertise it, tell me what your product does well, don't demonstrate what it is shit for and then tell me to buy it anyway.

Beyond the silly language games I benefit if I am less dumb and you benefit if I am less dumb. So be less dumb.

If the result is overconfidence in irrelevant methods of investigation, I am not persuaded about the less dumb bit and there are many other things I can spend my time learning. Currently knitting with pool noodles for needles comes further up that list than learning how to do Skepdick's verion of philosophy.

[Skepdick]

Under presuppositions of your own, which you just happen to like, and which have no more force than any of the other options, but o which you insist while announcing that you are not insisting. It's just that everybody who doesn't accept your domination is not being cooperative enough.

Well. If the shoe fits....

My insistence is on fewer axioms/presuppositions and more transparency in reasoning with fewer or no rules. To you that's "domination'".
But the Philosophical tradition with more axioms and adherence to stringent and unjustified rules. That's not "domination".

Rule enforcement is practically the definition of "authority".

Who told you that? Arguments are there to be tested just as scientific theorems are, it's the method of tetsting that you can't get your head around.

Oh, I got my head around it. It's precisely why your testing procedure is FUBAR.

But just as with a scientific theorem, a philosophical argument is supposed by tradition to be tested to destruction if it can.

Have you found any argument that can't be destructed? Any premise that can't be doubted? I haven't. Says something about arguments in general - surely?

The point isn't to cheat either in defence or destruction, it's not a win at any cost game. It's also entirely normal if the basic structure of an argument is good, to suggest improvements that might help.

Hence my feedback. You are criticising the logical structure (grammar) not the semantics.

Maybe some of that stuff doesn't happen much here, but this forum is sort of overrun with persons who think they are too good for philosophy.

I wouldn't know. I've never met any philosopher who had useful feedback.

If I did, and you aren't a great advert for it tbh, I wouldn't misuse it as a weapon against philosophy, I would use it for whatever purpose it actually suits. So what is it actually for? You wanna advertise it, tell me what your product does well, don't demonstrate what it is shit for and then tell me to buy it anyway.

What is "it" that you think I am selling? All I am pointing out is that you are using logic for purposes it's not suited for. Argumentation/persuasion/uncooperative game theory.

It works for the purposes of thinking/communication/engineering/invention/cooperative game theory.

If the result is overconfidence in irrelevant methods of investigation, I am not persuaded about the less dumb bit and there are many other things I can spend my time learning. Currently knitting with pool noodles for needles comes further up that list than learning how to do Skepdick's verion of philosophy.

Skepdick's version of Philosophy is called Science.

Logic is empirical.

[FlashDangerpants]

Skepdick's version of Philosophy is called Science.

If science wants to take responsibility for you, I can assure you that philosophy is more than willing to forfeit that honour.

Imagine a man walks into an archeology conference and makes the following set of demands:
1. Quit thinking about the past, you should make space lasers because it is futuristic.
2. Quit fucking around with trowels and brushes, this hydraulic press has ten billion youtube views so it's cooler than they are.

That man wouldn't be a very useful archeologist, and his criticisms would be ignored. You are of the same sort; you don't approve of philosophy's objectives or its methods and wish to impose alternatives to both. Whether your objectives and tools are suited to each other is also fairly doubtful, but that's not my problem.

If you want to use different methods to those of philosophy, in pursuit of different answers, to different questions, then you are working in some other field. If you want to just pick up a few of philosophy's idle questions and force through a set of answers according to some methodology of your own devising that is clearly incompatible with those of this field, then you are welcome to them, that's how other fields such as the natural sciences, economics, psycholology and others all came into being.

At least Freud had the decency to rip off Schopenhauer and just go off and do his own thing with it. He didn't hang around and make everyone join him in his insistence on making everything about dicks.

[Skepdick]

Skepdick's version of Philosophy is called Science.

If science wants to take responsibility for you, I can assure you that philosophy is more than willing to forfeit that honour.

Imagine a man walks into an archeology conference and makes the following set of demands:
1. Quit thinking about the past, you should make space lasers because it is futuristic.
2. Quit fucking around with trowels and brushes, this hydraulic press has ten billion youtube views so it's cooler than they are.

That man wouldn't be a very useful archeologist, and his criticisms would be ignored. You are of the same sort; you don't approve of philosophy's objectives or its methods and wish to impose alternatives to both. Whether your objectives and tools are suited to each other is also fairly doubtful, but that's not my problem.

If you want to use different methods to those of philosophy, in pursuit of different answers, to different questions, then you are working in some other field. If you want to just pick up a few of philosophy's idle questions and force through a set of answers according to some methodology of your own devising that is clearly incompatible with those of this field, then you are welcome to them, that's how other fields such as the natural sciences, economics, psycholology and others all came into being.

At least Freud had the decency to rip off Schopenhauer and just go off and do his own thing with it. He didn't hang around and make everyone join him in his insistence on making everything about dicks.

Well, that's one way to strawman me. But lets just say that you missed the fucking point.

Archeology does not happen in the past. You can't access the past - as in physically. It's impossible - because time doesn't work that way.

Which is precisely the fucking problem with classical logic. It doesn't localize time it doesn't even recognize time. Your primary instrument for "testing arguments" ignores the existence of time. The foundation of philosophy does not correspond to the reality we live in. It seems like a massive blunder, no?

Linear logic localises time.

[FlashDangerpants]

Skepdick's version of Philosophy is called Science.

If science wants to take responsibility for you, I can assure you that philosophy is more than willing to forfeit that honour.

Imagine a man walks into an archeology conference and makes the following set of demands:
1. Quit thinking about the past, you should make space lasers because it is futuristic.
2. Quit fucking around with trowels and brushes, this hydraulic press has ten billion youtube views so it's cooler than they are.

That man wouldn't be a very useful archeologist, and his criticisms would be ignored. You are of the same sort; you don't approve of philosophy's objectives or its methods and wish to impose alternatives to both. Whether your objectives and tools are suited to each other is also fairly doubtful, but that's not my problem.

If you want to use different methods to those of philosophy, in pursuit of different answers, to different questions, then you are working in some other field. If you want to just pick up a few of philosophy's idle questions and force through a set of answers according to some methodology of your own devising that is clearly incompatible with those of this field, then you are welcome to them, that's how other fields such as the natural sciences, economics, psycholology and others all came into being.

At least Freud had the decency to rip off Schopenhauer and just go off and do his own thing with it. He didn't hang around and make everyone join him in his insistence on making everything about dicks.

Well, that's one way to strawman me. But lets just say that you missed the fucking point.

Archeology does not happen in the past. You can't access the past - as in physically. It's impossible - because time doesn't work that way.

Which is precisely the fucking problem with classical logic. It doesn't localize time it doesn't even recognize time. Your primary instrument for "testing arguments" ignores the existence of time. It seems like a massive blunder, no?

Time is localized in linear logic.

Ah huh. So you don't like any of our tools and want to make us use a new set. So that's demand 2 from my "strawman" argument.
Now tell me how much you think we are involved in asking the wrong questions.

[Skepdick]

Ah huh. So you don't like any of our tools and want to make us use a new set. So that's demand 2 from my "strawman" argument.
Now tell me how much you think we are involved in asking the wrong questions.

You can't even define "right" and "wrong" but you think your questions fit the bill?

What makes you think that?

[FlashDangerpants]

Ah huh. So you don't like any of our tools and want to make us use a new set. So that's demand 2 from my "strawman" argument.
Now tell me how much you think we are involved in asking the wrong questions.

You can't even define "right" and "wrong" but you think your questions fit the bill?

What makes you think that?

And I am claiming that as part 1.
There was no strawman there.

You're just some random guy who doesn't like philosophy or how it's done, but doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of what to do instead.
Sort your own problems out. Until then you have nothing to offer.

[Skepdick]

You're just some random guy who doesn't like philosophy or how it's done, but doesn't seem to have a very clear idea of what to do instead.
Sort your own problems out. Until then you have nothing to offer.

Let me explain it to you like you are 5.

If Philosophy is involved in asking "deep questions" about the "nature of reality", and one of the fundamental aspects of reality (or our experience of reality) revolves around this strange phenomenon called Time.

Do you think it's a wise choice to use a logic that doesn't even acknowledge the existence of time?

It seems like whatever "answers" you come up with are going to be a bit... incomplete?

Drop classical logic. Adopt linear logic - it localises time.
^^^^ That's me "not having a clear idea of what to do". I can't say it any clearer to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic

Linear logic is a substructural logic proposed by Jean-Yves Girard as a refinement of classical and intuitionistic logic, joining the dualities of the former with many of the constructive properties of the latter Although the logic has also been studied for its own sake, more broadly, ideas from linear logic have been influential in fields such as programming languages, game semantics, and quantum physics (because linear logic can be seen as the logic of quantum information theory), as well as linguistics, particularly because of its emphasis on resource-boundedness, duality, and interaction.