putting religion in it's proper place

[Immanuel Can]

Everything is always defined into being

See if you can define cancer out of being.

Calling it "whiffle" will not make it better, nor any less likely to kill anyone.

The stuff is still there,

Now you've got it. Nothing you "define out of being" will cease to exist, and nothing you "define into being" will really exist. All you'll do is create a disconnect between your own perception and the real world. In other words, you'll delude yourself.

The linguistic-relativist thing isn't clever, witty or perceptive. It's silly, escapist and immature.

[Skepdick]

Now you've got it. Nothing you "define out of being" will cease to exist, and nothing you "define into being" will really exist. All you'll do is create a disconnect between your own perception and the real world. In other words, you'll delude yourself.

The linguistic-relativist thing isn't clever, witty or perceptive. It's silly, escapist and immature.

And yet some languages are objectively better at curing cancer than others.

I certainly prefer the language/vocabulary of modern oncology to the language of a 16th century witch doctor when it comes to curing cancer.
And I certainly prefer the language/vocabulary of modern day science to the language of Christianity.

Linguistic relativity doesn't create a disconnect from reality - it creates a disconnect from social norms.
Linguistic relativity allows for engineering languages to a specific task/purpose.

Try do philosophy without technical jargon.

[Advocate]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482673 time=1606848678 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=482665 time=1606847046 user_id=15238]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482660 time=1606843427 user_id=9431]

See if you can define cancer out of being.

Calling it "whiffle" will not make it better, nor any less likely to kill anyone.
[/quote]

The stuff is still there,[/quote]
Now you've got it. Nothing you "define out of being" will [i]cease [/i]to exist, and nothing you "define into being" will [i]really [/i]exist. All you'll do is create a disconnect between your own perception and the real world. In other words, you'll delude yourself.

The linguistic-relativist thing isn't clever, witty or perceptive. It's silly, escapist and immature.
[/quote]

It's the entire way the brain works.

[Immanuel Can]

The linguistic-relativist thing isn't clever, witty or perceptive. It's silly, escapist and immature.

It's the entire way the brain works.

"The brain" is more than linguistics. But even were linguistics the total brain, the brain's impressions are not identical to reality. Reality is more than the brain.

[Scott Mayers]

"De-fine" comes from "of finite". "

You've just answered your own question, Scott. For if you want "finite" definitions for an infinite being, you can't have them; not because the Entity in question does not exist, or cannot be partially described, but because nobody has the ability to put strict limits on any infinite.

The same is true of "pi." There IS a real ratio between the radius of a circle and it's diameter. Circles and diameters both exist, and can be quite stable and well-defined; but the ratio between them is infinite: and no mathematician since the dawn of time or into eternity will ever be able to tell you what the finite limits of "pi" are: they'll all stop with "3.14....something." They may give you a very long list, but they will never, never give you the total list.

So you can't have definitions of the infinite. But that does not imply either that "pi" is not real, or that "pi" is nothing useful to us. It is both.

I'm responding after a break from my last post to DL so some of what him or others wrote may have addressed this. I see Advocate had a post that I like in response to it and agree.

Taking what you said here, you interpret pi as being unable to be defined but this is not the case. A defintion of something that involves infinities is still 'finite'. You are confusing meaning that in formal logic systems use as 'undefines' that are nevertheless definitions. You can use 'undefined' terms at the beginning of a CLOSED system that defines it INSIDE the system but that one may not be able to formally state without using certain 'postulates'. This is what a program does when we initiate the terms being used at the beginning of all computer pre-compiled languages. They RESERVE terms without defining them but are still definitions about the kind of memory they reserve.

So you might say, for instance, "God" can be an 'undefined' but ONLY if it is later formally defined. This is not the case by your meaning because you are forcefully imposing some unspoken postulate that we likely will not agree to and would also prove that the very system being used is NOT 'closed' or, "incomplete". Then the best you'd be able to assert is that your system of belief may be a 'theory', something that many authors on religion DO respect. But those who recognize this are relatively 'liberal' and not even the kind of religions that necessarily create the problems because they do not assert their beliefs as LITERAL. Since you are a literalist that POSTULATES this, "God" as existing by your system, you are making the fallacy here of introducing "hidden assumptions" that beg what you are trying to prove.

I do not accept postulating that this "God" exists, even if this may be agreed to when you are talking about people who come from another different religion. But then you are not in disagreement about God's existence but to the particular subset of beliefs that define a religion. For instance, your assumptions may be valid for a Muslim you are competing to change to become Christian. This is not permissible for a non-theist to prove ANY religion.

Your example of using pi (∏) above is incorrect for a slightly different reason: the PARICULAR representation of ∏ cannot be literally listed finitely but is nevertheless real, something that requires a digression and proof that will be distracting here. But it is STILL 'defined' and expanded upon within math. (the symbol, is an undefined though) You would have been simpler to assert the definition of "∞" (infinity) instead as an example, for it has a better direct link to your assumption here. In this case, you define what "finite" is, and upon agreement that the definition is assigned to something real (a postulate of 'existence' that not one would deny normally), then you CAN define "infinite" as "non-finite" with expanded differentiation on "infinitismal". That is, as long as you agree to the existence of something, call it 'X', then even if you may not agree to whether 'non-X' exists by itself, you have to agree that the concept exists as a real complement to X where it has been proven to exist.


You require defining "God" here as I said because we disagree to your hidden postulate that it exists without necessarily noticing you are doing it. We are in disagreement to the existence. Thus you cannot permit "God" as an 'undefined' term because you'd be setting us up to require imposing upon us to read all your sources (your 'system' of belief) in order to agree. But you already admit that your meaning transcends definition which demonstrates your bias. And I do should not be begged to PRETEND your whole system, your whole religion, in order to attempt a disproof because it is UNCLOSABLE. The only 'proof' of closure for such a system is both death itself and your particular believed God to present himself there. We are in disagreement to why we should even believe. Thus you cannot expect us to gamble (like Pascal's Wager) in something because this is itself postulating God (pretending he exists) prior to proving it. This is VERY common with those like yourself who presume a "fake-it-until-you-make-it" mentality that is defining of right-wing believers. Your name, Immanuel CAN here, points to this attitude. While such political beliefs about what may seem to work for you cannot apply to others without the very imposition of CONTROL or force over others. The consevative's psychology is to assume that they are PROOF that one can succeed by inappropriately looking back at what your attitude was before hand and thinking that your prior pretense of it was the cause of it coming true, a positive thinker's fallacy, more formally called, "Wishful thinking".

So you are making the error of a hidden or missing assumption. And because I don't accept the implied existence of God that such a hidden postulate requires to permit using "God" as an undefined variable, this is not acceptable to allow for the non-believer apriori. It is circular and so is more of an appropriate general label of "non-sequitor" that you presumed of me incorrectly.

I need a real definition of "God" to go further. If you won't express one, then your belief is NOT able to be provable to anyone but those who already believe.

[Advocate]

The only definition of god that matters is that which can be verified by experiment sufficiently to convince a good-"faith" skeptic.

[Scott Mayers]

The only definition of god that matters is that which can be verified by experiment sufficiently to convince a good-"faith" skeptic.

It helps though to demonstrate this from the perspective Immanuel Can because the religious come with a whole life and background that cannot understand that atheism is NOT just some other competing religion. That is, they are normalized to believe in God that their logic shortcuts with the assumption that ALL people MUST believe in some form of belief in a God. The alternative to them when trying to make sense of the athiest is to assume we are AGAINST or 'resisting' any God as though we believe it exist but are UN-believing the reality (as though the default is to naturally 'know' God exists for us all.)

When one learns from early childhood that God exists, eventually, they hardwire their brain to 'normalize' God as an obvious fact of nature. Challenging this is like challenging their ability to walk and thus appears extremely unsettling in mind as though we are denying that walking is possible.

[Skepdick]

You've just answered your own question, Scott. For if you want "finite" definitions for an infinite being, you can't have them

I've never met anybody as skilled as you at shooting yourself in the foot. No - in the head. With a shotgun.

The above sentence completely dismantles Christianity. Mathematically. Logically and Informationally.

The ability to reduce infinite structures into finite representations is known as "compression". In the loosest sense of the word when dealing with infinities with finite representations "compressible" is means exactly the same thing as "communicable".

If your infinite being has no finite representation, then fuckall about your infinite being is communicable amongst humans.

Congratulations. You are an atheist.

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

[Scott Mayers]

You've just answered your own question, Scott. For if you want "finite" definitions for an infinite being, you can't have them

I've never met anybody as skilled as you at shooting yourself in the foot. No - in the head. With a shotgun.

The above sentence completely dismantles Christianity. Mathematically. Logically and Informationally.

The ability to reduce infinite structures into finite representations is known as "compression". In the loosest sense of the word when dealing with infinities with finite representations "compressible" is means exactly the same thing as "communicable".

If your infinite being has no finite representation, then fuckall about your infinite being is communicable amongst humans.

Congratulations. You are an atheist.

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

This is too confusing WITHOUT expecting him to go elsewhere to read into it. I've never heard of this even if it may be possibly help (?) It is better to approach this with very elementary theory of logic without requiring a dip into deeper metalogic theories.

Edit: I just looked at your link. That is completely off topic for this and not relevant. It reminds me of how someone tosses out some complex mathematical formula to INTIMIDATE another who proposes some basic colloquial level disagreement to some conventional but complex theory. You can't use severely advanced theory to discuss elementary topics or you are using it to intimate the other rather than demonstrate where they are mistaken using simpler logic. If it cannot be simpler, as you are implying, I disagree and if you follow what I write, you may see HOW this can be expressed. Helping another understand needs charity and patience to the other and requires beginning from where they come from.

[Skepdick]

This is too confusing WITHOUT expecting him to go elsewhere to read into it. I've never heard of this even if it may be possibly help (?) It is better to approach this with very elementary theory of logic without requiring a dip into deeper metalogic theories.

OK... Here is a simpler explanation.

This paper discusses the Spigot algorithm.
This algorithm produce a streams of ALL digits of pi. This algorithm is the Kolmogorov complexity (finite representation) for pi.

It's not that nobody can't give him the "entire list" (the above algorithm can).

It's just that his head doesn't have enough memory AND infinite time to receive the communique.

[Scott Mayers]

This is too confusing WITHOUT expecting him to go elsewhere to read into it. I've never heard of this even if it may be possibly help (?) It is better to approach this with very elementary theory of logic without requiring a dip into deeper metalogic theories.

OK... Here is a simpler explanation.

Here is pi. ALL of it.

numIters=400000 -- Or whatever upper limit. This takes a couple of seconds
ox=[1.0,3.0..numIters/2]
cx=cycle[4.0,-4.0]

calcPi:: [Double] -> [Double] -> Double
calcPi (c:cycList) (o:oddList)
| oddList==[] = 0
| otherwise = (c/o) + calcPi cycList oddList

main:: IO()
main=
print $ calcPi cx ox

It's not that nobody can't give him the "entire list" (the above algorithm can).

It's that his head doesn't have enough memory AND infinite time to receive the transmission.

Infinities are incommunicable without finite representations.

Read my edited addition above. You now appear to be trying to 'intimidate' me. I cannot agree to whatever you are saying here without understanding that confusing algorithm's language. No offence, but you need to step back a bit because while you MAY have something valid in mind, I would require a complete digression to first learn your language and background in order to first make sense of it. It is as though you are speaking Chinese to an English audience.

[Skepdick]

Read my edited addition above. You now appear to be trying to 'intimidate' me. I cannot agree to whatever you are saying here without understanding that confusing algorithm's language.

No offence, but you need to step back a bit because while you MAY have something valid in mind, I would require a complete digression to first learn your language and background in order to first make sense of what you are even saying. It is as though you are speaking Chinese to an English audience.

*sigh* Nobody is trying to intimidate you, but if you feel that way - it's on you.

You don't have to learn the language. You just have to understand what it does.

And what it DOES is it produces a stream of ALL digits of pi.

I revised my post too. Read this paper: http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/jeremy.gi ... spigot.pdf

[Scott Mayers]

Read my edited addition above. You now appear to be trying to 'intimidate' me. I cannot agree to whatever you are saying here without understanding that confusing algorithm's language.

No offence, but you need to step back a bit because while you MAY have something valid in mind, I would require a complete digression to first learn your language and background in order to first make sense of what you are even saying. It is as though you are speaking Chinese to an English audience.

*sigh* You don't have to learn the language. You just have to understand what it does.

IF you run this algorithm it will produce a stream of ALL digits of pi.

I revised my post too. Read this paper: http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/jeremy.gi ... spigot.pdf

This is only useful if you postulate what you know and use as a program by default. I had debated once the logic of the "Monty Hall Problem" in which some thought that you CAN use a program to prove the solution. The problem I had to prove is that any higher-order language used to 'prove' something hides the logic on the level of the architecture. As such, you require BELIEVING in the program's validity AND assume that the program itself doesn't HIDE a trick that assures the outcome you want.

For example that maybe you could relate, the architecture of an "or"gate COULD be as simple as having three wires soldered together with two that act as input and the remaining as an output. But the minimum logic of an "and" gate is more complex and requires two transister switches. The timing of both kinds put together would not be functional. The simple 'or'-gate creates other problems than just the fact that it is drastically quicker than the 'and'-gate because if two inputs are '1's the output is actually '2', not '1' that you intended. Then if you correct the structure so that the 'or' gate is isolated by using two transistors (like the 'and'-gate), you still have the problem that the 'or'-gate is STILL faster to process than the 'and'-gate.

The point is, without going into electronics, is that the complexity of the the PRACTICAL means to create a computer logical is complexly beyond the merely SIMPLE logic that is functionally understandable in THEORY. Oddly enough, I'm betting that the link you provided relates to this very point. As such, you would be using an argument about complexity that demonstrates that YOU are being too 'complex' for something that is logically 'simpler'. You are falsely assuming that the 'complex' is necessary to understand the 'simpler', a completely opposite rationale you are attempting to imply as being helpful. That is, you are making the very error of the linked discussion about 'complexity'. The fallacy in logic is related to confusing when or where "irreducible complexity" applies or not and actually fuels more confusion, not less.

[Skepdick]

This is only useful if you postulate what you know and use as a program by default. I had debated once the logic of the "Monty Hall Problem" in which some thought that you CAN use a program to prove the solution. The problem I had to prove is that any higher-order language used to 'prove' something hides the logic on the level of the architecture. As such, you require BELIEVING in the program's validity AND assume that the program itself doesn't HIDE a trick that assures the outcome you want.

For example that maybe you could relate, the architecture of an "or"gate COULD be as simple as having three wires soldered together with two that act as input and the remaining as an output. But the minimum logic of an "and" gate is more complex and requires two transister switches. The timing of both kinds put together would not be functional. The simple 'or'-gate creates other problems than just the fact that it is drastically quicker than the 'and'-gate because if two inputs are '1's the output is actually '2', not '1' taht you want. Then if you correct the structure so that the 'or' gate is isolated by using two transistors (like the 'and'-gate), you still have the problem that the 'or'-gate is STILL faster to process than the 'and'-gate.

The point is, without going into electronics, is that the complexity of the the PRACTICAL means to create a computer logical is complexly beyond the merely SIMPLE logic that is functionally understandable in THEORY. Oddly enough, I'm betting that the link you provided relates to this very point. As such, you would be using an argument about complexity that demonstrates that YOU are being too 'complex' for something that is logically 'simpler'. You are falsely assuming that the 'complex' is necessary to understand the 'simpler', a completely opposite rationale you are attempting to imply as being helpful. That is, you are making the very error of the linked discussion about 'complexity'. The fallacy in logic is related to confusing when or where "irreducible complexity" applies or not and actually fuels more confusion, not less.

Then run the algorithm on an architecture you trust.

You'll still get one digit per unit time, is just your unit-time will be wee bit long.

paper-and-a-pencil-1467185202BWe.jpg

[Skepdick]

assume that the program itself doesn't HIDE a trick that assures the outcome you want.

Also. Obviously the program hides a "trick"!

A FINITE set of characters produces ALL INFINITELY-MANY DIGITS OF PI. Which is precisely the outcome I want!

That's practically magic as far as I am concerned.